Interpretations

The E-Commerce Law has a provision that reads as follows:

SEC. 37. Statutory Interpretation. - Unless otherwise expressly provided for, the interpretation of this Act shall give due regard to its international origin and the need to promote uniformity in its application and the observance of good faith in international trade relations. The generally accepted principles of international law and convention on electronic commerce shall likewise be considered.

What is the meaning of this provision? Let me paraphrase and explain it to you this way:

The law cannot promise to cover every eventuality. Issues will arise which are not directly addressed by the law. When this happens these things must be considered:

First, the Act is patterned after the UNCITRAL model law; it has international roots.

Second, stability, uniformity, and good faith is a must in international trade relations.

Third, principles of international law, and the convention on electronic commerce should be followed.

The practical result is that when the E-Commerce law is silent as to a specific issue, the UNCITRAL model law, the convention, and international principles shall be used to fill in the gaps. If these are not enough, then the general guideline is to do what is fair, what will promote stability and uniformity in international trade.

The UNCITRAL model law, the Convention, and our law are extremely alike. If no answer is found after consulting the E-Commerce law, it is not likely that an answer exists in the other two sources. General principles of internation law and good faith will then guide the resolution.

A Note on Reciprocity

Section 39 is a reciprocity clause that basically lays down a give-and-take rule. If a country gives us privileges under their e-commerce law, we will also give them privileges under our e-commerce law.

A Concrete Example

What are some issues that are not directly addressed by the law? The development of new technologies is not addressed directly. Privacy issues are also not directly dealt with.

What if you were able to create a special system that employs retinal scans and thumbmarks, combined with a PIN entry requirement, for online banking? Will that be considered an electronic key or signature? The definition requires that the electronic key or signature be in electronic form. The answer to this question, following the quidelines above, is yes. It should be considered, even if the key is not strictly in electronic form. A more complicated key or signature provides better security and reliability.