17 2.3.7 Individuals may also use the principles of the Model Law to draft contracts to overcome legal obstacles to the increased use of ecommerce. The Model Law may also help to remedy disadvantages that stem from the fact that inadequate legislation at the national level can create barriers to international trade, a significant amount of which is carried out using modern communication techniques. The Model Law is not intended to cover every aspect of electronic commerce, but is likely to be supplemented by procedural regulations. The intention is, however, that each enacting state pay particular attention to the need to maintain a flexible approach in a rapidly changing technological environment. 2.3.8 Two examples of the extension of the principles of the UNCITRAL Model Law into other model legislation can be found in the Uniform Law Conference of Canada: Uniform Electronic Commerce Act4 and the U.S. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.5 The U.S Uniform Act, expanding on the U.S. Uniform Commercial Code, applies to business, commercial or governmental transactions. Signatures and records that are not part of a transaction are not covered by the U.S. Uniform Act. 2.3.9 On the other hand, a number of jurisdictions (e.g., Australia and New Zealand) saw no reason to limit their legislation to commercial transactions. Since the general intent is to be enabling and since generally people are not required to use electronic communications, the policy makers saw no reason why the legislation should not be extended to all transactions. 2.3.10 The basic tenet of the model laws is that a transaction or a contract is not invalid solely by virtue of the fact that it is electronic.6 Similarly, a signature or record may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely because it is electronic. The Canadian Uniform Act sets out basic equivalence rules (examples above) and states that they apply when the people involved in a transaction agree, explicitly or implicitly, to use electronic documents. People are not required to use electronic communication, but when they choose to, the legal effectiveness of electronic transactions should not be in doubt. General equivalency rules avoid the need to amend all statutes that state or imply a particular medium of communication. 2.3.11 In some legislation, governments are allowed to set rules for incoming 4 www.law.ualberta.ca/alri/ulc/current/euecafa.htm National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws; www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/fnact99/1990s/ueta99.htm 6 Note that other factors may invalidate, for example, a contract. Thus a contract entered under duress or where there is no agreement on material issues is not a valid contract; this is a matter of contract law and has nothing to do with the electronic or non-electronic form of the contract. 5