A recent UK case addressed an important contract issue for IT lawyers. Will a limit of liability clause that prevents recovery of damages for a wrongful termination of an agreement be a ground for granting an injunction to prevent the irreparable harm associated with the breach for which full damages cannot be recovered? Alternatively, will the liability exclusion be accepted as the bargain reached by the parties for such breaches and not be a basis for a finding of irreparable harm? The court in AB v CD  EWHC 1 (QB) (03 January 2014) considered that the latter position was the law, but expressed doubts as to its correctness.
Archive for the ‘contracts’ category
Earlier today, I gave my annual presentation to the Toronto Computer Lawyers’ Group on developments in Computer, Internet, and e-commerce Law. The slides cover the period from my last presentation in June 2012, Developments in Computer, Internet and E-Commerce Law (2011-2012).
The cases summarized in the slides below canvass developments in a number of countries and include cases from Canada, United States, UK, Ireland, Australia, and Israel.
Blizzard v. Simpson, 2012 ONSC 4312
Copyright assignments. There are a myriad of ways for them to be challenged or be ineffective. Three recent cases illustrate their potential frailties; one from the US and two from Canada.
Yesterday’s decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Righthaven LLC v Hoehn 2013 WL 1908876 (9th.Cir.May 9, 2013) spells the end of the copyright troll Righthaven. It gained substantial notoriety by commencing lawsuits alleging copyright infringement in articles published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal reproduced online by websites without permission.
If you’re on holidays and looking for some copyright law hilarity, take 15 minutes to read Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571. This case from Alberta examines the practice of Organized Commercial Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (“OCPA” litigants). These persons employ a collection of techniques and arguments promoted and sold by ‘gurus’ to disrupt court operations and to attempt to frustrate the legal rights of governments, corporations, and individuals.
Last week the CRTC released its first two “information bulletins” intended to help businesses in interpreting CASL and the CRTC’s regulations under CASL. While certain of the Commission’s interpretations are helpful, some are troublesome as they would impose new requirements not contemplated either by the statute or the CRTC’s own regulations. They would necessitate costly compliance, which would particularly affect small and medium-sized businesses and mobile digital commerce.
Under the Commission’s interpretation of its regulations and the related provisions of CASL, among other things:
- Users should be given the opportunity to unsubscribe from all messages from the sender, not merely CEMs.
Last fall, the BC Supreme Court canvassed in great detail whether “web wrap” also known as “browse wrap” agreements are potentially enforceable. Earlier today, I gave a talk at the Law Society of Upper Canada that summarized the conclusions and reasoning of the court in the Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2011 BCSC 1196 case. My slides from the talk are shown below. They also summarize numerous other cases that examine the enforceability of click wrap and web wrap agreements.
You can always tell when you are about to read a good case by its opening paragraph. The decision of the BC Supreme Court in Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc., 2011 BCSC 1196 doesn’t disappoint. It begins as follows:
The ability of the law to adapt is part of its strength. Technological innovation tests that resilience. This case considers that ability as claims for breach of contract, trespass to chattels and copyright infringement meet the Internet. At the root of this lawsuit is the legitimacy of indexing publically accessible websites.