ABA Withdraws Consideration of UCITA

Cognito writes "AFFECT, Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions, is reporting that the American Bar Association has withdrawn its consideration for endorsing a resolution to approve UCITA, the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act. This is a good thing. It's interesting to note that a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted as a common law."

Virginia and Maryland

[Anonymous Coward]

Now somebody needs to go to a computer store, buy software, begin installation and regect the EULA in either Virginia or Maryland and file a similar suit as the one in Califorinia. Now that the ABA has withdrawn support, it is conceiveable that this type of suit may result in the overturning of the law.

Cute Workarounds

[jyuter]

I remember reading in ZDNet a long time ago (forgot who wrote the article) about two great workarounds for the click-wrap agreements.

1. Videotape yourself getting hammered before clicking - thus not in the state of mind to agree to anything
2. Videotape a minor clicking on the "ok" - also not bindidng

Anyway, I thought it was cute back then

Re:software failures

[markwusinich]

It would not end free software, but for critical installations it would insure that someone who is qualified has insured that it will work with in the current guidelines.

I would feel much safer know that my heart monitor is run using open source software than proprietary software. At least with open source I can have ANY independent person look over the program. With proprietary software everyone that looks over the code has to sign his or her soul over.

Not the proposed law

[werdna]

It's interesting to note that a recently filed law suit would have been prohibited if UCITA were endorsed and adopted as a common law.

In what world?

That lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff was forced to stomach a license she could not have been reviewed, with respect to which she was not permitted to return the goods after deciding she didn't like the license.

Had California been a UCITA state, she could sue under UCITA for failure to accept the return, since UCITA expressly provides that a shrink-wrap for a mass-market product is not enforceable unless the person has an opportunity to review, or:

(3) If a record or term is available for review only after a person becomes obligated to pay or begins its performance, the person has an opportunity to review only if it has a right to a return if it rejects the record.

At least at first view, UCITA would have provided her an express cause of action, unlike the present and uncertain state of common law and UCC in which her lawsuit presently festers. She will not know the answer until the judge and jury had decided, and at least one or two levels of appeal had passed (assuming she doesn't give up first) -- Under UCITA, she would have a right to return or rescind given to her by statute.