Conclusion of contracts by electronic agents

ABSTRACT

The use of electronic agents in the conclusion of contracts has two significant advantages. Firstly, transaction costs can be reduced, and secondly, more complex contracts, being intractable by humans, are made possible.This article gives a motivation for the use of agents in the conclusion of contracts. Then, we discuss the legal classification of these contracts: Currently, agents can only be used as tools in the generation of declarations of intention; however, a different classification may be appropriate in the future. Suggestions from literature are discussed, leading to the result that agents should be treated neither as natural nor as legal persons. Yet, treating agents as pure tools becomes more difficult as they act more and more autonomously. Possible solutions are discussed in this paper.

REFERENCES

• 1: T. Allen and R. Widdison. Can computers make contracts? Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 9(1):25--52, 1996.
• 2: A. Cordes. Form und Zugang von Willenserklärungen im Internet im deutschen und US-amerikanischen Recht, volume 6 of Schriften zum Informations-, Telekommunikations- und Medienrecht. LIT, Münster, 2001.
• 3: C. E. Karnow. The encrypted self: Fleshing out the rights of electronic personalities. The John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 13(1):1--16, 1994.
• 4: I. R. Kerr. Providing for autonomous electronic devices in the uniform electronic commerce act, 2000. http://www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/current/ekerr.pdf.
• 5: M. Luck, P. McBurney, and C. Preist. Agent Technology: Enabling Next Generation Computing - A Roadmap for Agent-Based Computing. AgentLink, Southampton, 2003.
• 6: J. Mehrings. Vertragsabschluß im Internet - Eine neue Herausforderung für das "alte" BGB. Multimedia und Recht (MMR), 1(1):30--33, 1998.
• 7: P. Milgrom and J. Roberts. Economics, Organization and Management. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1992.
• 8: R. Schulze. Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch: Handkommentar. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, 2nd edition, 2002.
• 9: G. Schwarz. Die rechtsgeschäftliche 'Vertretung' durch Softwareagenten: Zurechnung und Haftung. In E. Schweighofer, T. Menzel, and G. Kreuzbauer, editors, Auf dem Weg zur ePerson: aktuelle Fragestellungen der Rechtsinformatik, number 3 in Schriftenreihe Rechtsinformatik, pages 65--72, Wien, 2001. Verlag Österreich.
• 10: E. Schweighofer. Vorüberlegungen zu künstlichen personen: autonome roboter und intelligente softwareagenten. In E. Schweighofer, T. Menzel, and G. Kreuzbauer, editors, Auf dem, Weg zur ePerson: aktuelle Fragestellungen der Rechtsinformatik, number 3 in Schriftenreihe Rechtsinformatik, pages 45--53, Wien, 2001. Verlag Österreich.
• 11: L. B. Solum. Legal personhood for artificial intelligences. North Carolina Law Review, 70:1231--1287, 1992.
• 12: L. Steels. When are robots intelligent autonomous agents? Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 15(1):3--9, 1995.
• 13: A. M. Turing. Computing machinery and intelligence. Mind: a quarterly review of psychology and philosophy, 59(236):433--460, 1950.
• 14: Gerhard Weiss, Multiagent Systems: A Modern Approach to Distributed Artificial Intelligence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2000
• 15: E. M. Weitzenboeck. Electronic agents and the formation of contracts. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 9(3):204--234, 2001.
• 16: S. Wettig and E. Zehendner. The electronic agent: A legal personality under german law? In A. Oskamp and E. Weitzenboeck, editors, Proceedings of LEA 2003: The Law and Electronic Agents, pages 97--113, Edinburgh, 2003.
• 17: A. Wiebe. Die elektronische Willenserklärung: Kommunikationstheoretische und rechtsdogmatische Grundlagen des elektronischen Geschäftsverkehrs. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2002.
• 18: Michael Woolridge , Michael J. Wooldridge, Introduction to Multiagent Systems, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 2001