UK: IT/eCommerce Update

Last Updated: 17 February 2003

1. eCommerce NEWS

1.1 Scope and Enforceability of ADR Clauses

IT contracts often contain an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) clause which requires the parties to attempt to resolve any disputes before resorting to Court proceedings. A recent decision by the UK High Court considered whether parties to a contract could ignore such clauses.

Cable & Wireless and IBM had entered into an agreement for the supply of information technology throughout the world. A dispute arose under the agreement. Cable and Wireless issued court proceedings. IBM successfully made an application to stay the court proceedings due to the failure by Cable and Wireless to first attempt to resolve the dispute using ADR.

The High Court found the ADR clause in question was enforceable as it clearly contained a mutual and unqualified obligation to use an identifiable ADR procedure. While the clause in the contract did not prevent the parties from initiating legal proceedings it did prevent the courts deciding the dispute before the parties had attempted to resolve the matter through ADR.

For business this decision reinforces two key points. Firstly, when entering into a contract ensure that if an ADR clause is included it creates a clear obligation to use ADR and sets out the procedure to be used. Check also to see it does not prevent the parties at least commencing legal proceedings. This allows the parties to seek interim relief from the court if necessary to protect their interests (eg an injunction) pending the results of ADR. Second, if a dispute arises check the obligations under the ADR clause to ensure it does not interfere with any court proceedings that may be planned.

Cable and Wireless plc v IBM United Kingdom Ltd - Please click through for a copy of the decision.

1.2 UK Communications Bill published

In November 2002 the UK government released the Communications Bill, which is to form the basis of a major overhaul of the regulation of media and communications in the UK. It has had to overcome a number of hurdles. An earlier draft of the Bill published in May 2002 was the subject of an extensive public consultation process. It also underwent pre-legislative scrutiny by a Parliamentary committee chaired by Lord Puttnam.

The key features of the current version of the Bill are:

  • The transfer of regulatory power to the Office of Communications (OFCOM). OFCOM is the new super regulator which will replace the existing five regulators (the Independent Television Commission, Radio Authority, Office of Telecommunications, Broadcasting Standards Commission and Radiocommunications Agency)
  • More freedom for public service broadcasters to regulate themselves
  • OFCOM will be given powers concurrent with the Office of Fair Trading to apply competition rules in the communications Sector
  • The establishment of a Content Board to advise OFCOM on the nature and quality of TV and radio programmes
  • The removal of the requirement for licensing of telecommunications systems and the introduction of a new regulatory regime for electronic communications networks, services and associated facilities in line with the recent EU Telecoms Directives
  • The provision for trading of radio spectrum
  • The reform the rules on media ownership

It is anticipated that the Bill will be passed by the House of Commons by early March 2003. It will then still need to be approved by the House of Lords before becoming law.

Please click through for a copy of the Bill.

1.3 New Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations start March 31

The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002 implement the EU Directive on the Sale of Consumer Goods and Associated Guarantees. The regulations come into force on 31 March 2003, some 2 years after the due date for implementation of the Directive. The effect on the UK's extensive consumer protection regime will be relatively modest but there will be some important changes:

  • For the first six months after purchase/delivery, the burden of proof when reporting faulty goods will be reversed in the consumer’s favour. During that period if the consumer reports the goods as faulty the onus will be on the merchant to prove there were no faults in the goods as at the date of sale
  • The Directive will require guarantees offered by manufacturers or retailers to be legally binding, to be written in plain language with clear detail on how to claim and to be available on request
  • There will be a right to have goods repaired or replaced or have a price reduction. These remedies are already widely used in the UK but they have not had status in law. The existing right to reject unsatisfactory goods, within a reasonable time, will be maintained

The Directive itself sets a minimum baseline for consumers' rights across Member States of a two year warranty/guarantee. England and Wales have however decided to continue the pre-existing six year liability period for sale of goods rights in England and Wales (limited to six years by the Limitation Act 1980).

Please click through for a copy of the new Regulations

1.4 US website owners subject to Australian defamation laws

Australia's High Court has ruled that it has jurisdiction to hear a defamation case relating to a story published on a U.S Web site. Joseph Gutnick, a businessman from Melbourne, Australia sued the US company Dow Jones over an allegedly defamatory magazine article. Dow Jones & Company publishes the Wall Street Journal and also operates, a news website. allows subscribers and registered users to access a number of newspapers including the magazine where the article appeared. Gutnick successfully argued that the Australian Court has jurisdiction as he had suffered damage to his reputation in Australia. Gutnick also conducts business in the US and has contributed to charities in the US and Israel but the Court accepted that much of his business and social life was focused in Victoria, Australia.

The case understandably caught the attention of media companies around he world and the court received submissions from 18 media organizations including AOL Time Warner, AAP, Reuters and Yahoo. The Court however dismissed the defendant’s arguments that publishers would now need to consider the laws of defamation in every country around the world where the website could be accessed.

The Gutnick decision is a reminder for business engaged in eCommerce that they also need to consider the laws in countries other than their own home jurisdiction. In recent years courts in the UK, US and France have also shown their willingness to apply their domestic laws to protect their citizens from foreign websites.

Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick - Please click through for a copy of the decision

1.5 Electronic Credit and Hire Purchase Agreements

The EU’s Electronic Commerce Directive 2000 requires member states to ensure their laws allow contracts to be concluded by electronic means. The Directive has been largely implemented in the UK by the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002. Those Regulations are discussed in the IT Bulletins in April and November 2002.

When these Regulations were laid, the Government gave a commitment to remove any remaining legal obstacles to the recognition of electronically concluded contracts. The Consumer Credit Act requirements as to the form and content of agreements, rights of cancellation, and procedures for dealing with default and termination were identified as raising such obstacles. The Act applies to individuals who enter into credit and hire agreements for amounts up to £25,000.

A consultation paper has been released to determine the changes that are necessary to the Act to allow consumer credit and hire agreements to be concluded by electronic means. The impact on electronic business of other aspects of the Act, such as advertising, will be reviewed at a later stage. It is not planned to make any changes to the existing level of consumer protection.

Responses to the current consultation should be made by 28 March 2002. The DTI aims to publish a summary of the responses in June 2003.

Please click through for a copy of the consultation paper



Most IT contracts will contain clauses which attempt to limit and/or exclude the liability of the supplier for loss or damage arising out of a fault in the goods or services. For such clauses to be enforceable they must satisfy the "reasonableness" test in the Unfair Contracts Terms Act 1977 (UCTA).

In the May 2001 IT Newsflash we featured the decision of Watford Electronics Limited v Sanderson CFL Limited. Prior to Watford’s case if the parties had contracted on the supplier’s standard form terms and conditions the Court would typically find any clause which excluded/limited liability to be unreasonable and therefore unenforceable.

The recent decision of the UK Technology and Construction Court in Sam Business Systems v Hedley and Co also found in favour of the supplier by finding the supplier’s standard form limitation of liability clause was enforceable. There was a sting in the tail of the decision however as the Court found that the supplier could not charge under a related maintenance agreement for the costs of rectifying defects in software that was sold as ready to use.

Summary of the facts

Hedley was a small firm of stockbrokers which realised in mid-1999 that its existing IT system might not be Y2K compliant. SAM, a small software company, agreed to supply software that was (a) Y2K compliant and (b) able to automatically produce the mandatory reports required by the very strict UK financial services regulation. SAM allowed customers to chose between certain modules and services but sold its software as a developed system that was ready for use. The original verbal estimate for the supply to Hedley was £180,000. Two separate agreements, namely a licence agreement and a maintenance agreement, were concluded.

The licence agreement set out a procedure for acceptance testing of the software, and provided that in the event of non-acceptance in accordance with that procedure, all sums paid to the claimant under the agreement would be refunded (the money back guarantee). The licence agreement provided that the money back guarantee was the sole and exclusive remedy. The licence agreement also contained an entire agreement clause and exclusion of liability clauses. The exclusion clause (i) excluded any implied warranties as to fitness for purpose and (ii) excluded liability for any damages resulting from the use of the software.

Immediately after "go live" serious problems were apparent, many of which were fixed. Problems continued to arise so within 18 months of "go live" Hedley outsourced their IT system to another supplier. Hedley also purported to terminate the licence agreement but did not follow the procedure required by the "money back guarantee". By the time of the trial Hedley had already paid approximately £184,000 to SAM. SAM claimed a further total of £310,000 under both the licence contract and the maintenance contracts. Hedley counterclaimed for almost £800,000 being all sums paid to SAM and damages.

The Court had to consider the following issues:

  1. Did the exclusion clause in the license agreement prevent Hedley from recovering the cost of the software and damages?
  2. Could SAM charge for remedying defects in the software under the maintenance contract?

The Exclusion Clause in the Licence Agreement

The Court was aware that Hedley could be closed down by the financial services sector regulators for failure to comply with the mandatory reporting requirements. If that occurred Hedley would no doubt sue SAM for damages including loss of profits, costs of paying off staff and seek to recover any claims made by clients. Given that risk together with the money back guarantee the Court found it was reasonable for the licence agreement to exclude liability. Although Hedley may not have been in an equal bargaining position with SAM the Court stated this was due to Hedley leaving it so late to address the Y2K issue. The evidence also suggested that the majority of suppliers at the time used similar exclusion clauses. Hedley could therefore not recover the cost of the software or damages under the licence agreement.

The cost of remedying the defects

The Court dismissed SAM’s claim for monies outstanding under the maintenance contract. The evidence showed that the vast majority of SAM’s maintenance work was in fact rectifying defects in the software. The Court found these were pre-existing problems in the software rather than faults that had occurred after use. In a very strongly worded judgement Judge Bowsher QC stated, "no consumer would or should accept liability to pay for rectification of defects existing in goods on delivery even if there was no contractual liability on the part of the supplier to pay damages arising out of those defects".

Practical impact of the Case

Impact of the decision for IT suppliers

Sam v Hedley is confirmation that Courts are now more prepared to enforce exclusion clauses in IT contracts. The court did make it clear that the onus is still on IT suppliers to ensure that their exclusion/limitation of liability clause does not contravene UCTA.

SAM however did not escape unscathed and this decision offers the following lessons for IT suppliers:

  • The protection provided by an "entire agreement clause" to exclude representations made prior to signing the contract can be lost if the supplier is not careful
  • Payment clauses that provide for a final instalment upon completion need to be drafted carefully. In this case the Court found that due to the persistent defects the contract had technically not been completed. SAM therefore had to refund the completion payment of £29,000
  • IT suppliers need to be wary about making inaccurate claims about the performance and state of development of their product. The supplier may be obliged to repair any defects free of charge under a maintenance agreement if it is sold as a product that is ready to use

Impact of the decision for IT customers

The decision highlights the need for IT customers to:

  • Be more proactive when negotiating clauses that limit or exclude liability. The days when customers could blithely consent to such clauses safe in the knowledge that UCTA would render them unenforceable are long since gone. The end result for the customer in this case was that it paid approximately £180,000 for software it had to replace within 18 months of purchase
  • Manage the implementation of the software and acceptance testing. If problems arise in the software a failure to comply with the acceptance testing procedure can result in the customer losing the right to reject the software

The decision does however offer a glimmer of hope for IT customers. The customer in this case was not held to ransom under the maintenance contract for the costs of rectification of developed software that contained defects.


SAM v Hedley is a decision of a single judge in the Technology and Construction Court. Judge Bowsher QC, made it very clear it was a decision that was limited to the unique facts of the case. It will be interesting to see how the decision is subsequently viewed by other UK Courts.

In the interim it raises a number of issues for both IT customers and suppliers. It is also a good example that care needs to be taken when drafting, negotiating and managing IT contracts for even relatively small amounts. Although the initial software purchase price was £180,000 the difference in the positions of the parties when it reached trial exceeded £1 million. Few would argue that an ounce of prevention is preferable to a £1 million cure.

Sam Business Systems v Hedley and Company - Please click through for a copy of the decision



© Herbert Smith 2003

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.