O'Rourke Denis: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First ReadingText is incorporated into the Bound VolumeO'Rourke Denis: Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill — First Reading[Sitting date: 15 May 2013. Volume:690;Page:9986. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Electronic Transactions (Contract Formation) Amendment Bill as far as passage to the Commerce Committee because it at least deserves proper consideration. I congratulate the member Paul Goldsmith on having this bill selected from the ballot. However the bill may prove to be not needed because the general rule of contract formation is that a contract is formed at the time an acceptance of the offer is received by the offeror. That applies generally unless an exception applies and as we know there is no such exception for electronic transactions such as those formed by an exchange of emails.As is also very well known there is an exception for acceptances by post in the well-known case ofAdams v Lindsell so that the date and time of acceptance is when the letter is posted not when it is received. The reliability of the postal system was considered to be so good that this rule could apply well in practice and indeed it has served us well over a couple of centuries. Otherwise of course it would be difficult inpractice to complete any contract through the post because if the offeror were not bound by the offer until the answer was actually received then the offeree would not be bound until they had received advice of that. Also the offeror may simply decide to deny receipt of acceptance. So there were good and practical reasons for the rule inAdams v Lindsell.I agree that the longstanding rule in that case is however not appropriate for all electronic transactions. Contractual offers by telex as with the telephone or just face to face of course are simultaneous so a contract is formed when the offeree accepts at the same time as the offeror gets the acceptance. Although it is correct that there is no clear authority on acceptance by way of email there is no established exception either so the general rule applies in favour of acceptance when it is received. This also is at the same time as when it is sent if it is sent by electronic means such as email. Nevertheless this bill would serve to clarify the law.I accept that the position with telex differs from that with emails and that is of course because communication by telex is generally acknowledged at each end—at the sending machine and the receiving machine—at the same time. With an email however as we are all very well aware it is not known to the sender whether an email has been received unless some form of confirmation is received from the recipient. Although the sender of an email can obtain confirmation that a message has been received that is not commonly done. So the issue here really is that emails are delivered by a variety of servers and there is not the same assurance that an email will get to the intended recipient or be acknowledged as is the case with post.For those reasons I do believe that this bill deserves examination by the Commerce Committee first of all to see whether it is needed. I think there is at least a prima facie case for it. If it is needed we need to consider what the bill should provide and that needs I think to be very carefully looked at. If indeed the bill is passed it would clarify one small area of uncertainty and would assist business. Given the prevalence of electronic communications in society today with emails smartphones and all sorts of other devices it is useful that the current Act be amended to cover such areas. New Zealand First will therefore support the bill going to the select committee and we look forward to the debate on all of those issues there.