This case and Affinity Internet are sufficient to suggest to me that the prudent author would be advised to stay away from submission when an accompanying document is included in a contract. Of course, the contract in question in this case that it is under the Agreement of SkyNetWEB user, but the court said that “this simple statement, with nothing more, is not sufficient for consolidated arbitration. The court cited another case in Florida concerning a similar language. In that case, the court considered the importance of the subject and concluded that it was clear that “the intention of the parties was not to include in the subcontracting the arbitration decision of the general treaty.” Regardless of the method of creation adopted, given the provisions of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act, the terms used would most likely be valid. Despite this, caution should be exercised in the use of different methods, as this could have an impact on the application of certain embedded terms. This is particularly relevant for contracts that can be covered by the new Consumer Protection Act. However, neither the Electronic Communications and Transaction Act nor the Consumer Protection Act are intended to replace the common law, but rather to adapt it and create a general framework for these types of agreements and transactions. It is argued that the law applicable to submission by reference to signed documents should apply to cases where click-Wrap is used, while the law applicable to unsigned documents should apply when the web wrap is used. What wording should you use? Do not take into account as a reference: In MSDC – 9.18, I suggest that it is better not to use this phrase in a contract. In the contract at issue in Affinity Internet, something would have worked as follows: “The agreement to use SkyNetWeb in www.skynetweb.com/ company/right/legal.php is part of that agreement.” The above A.L.R.2d notes deals with cases where comparable language was applicable. It is alleged that none of the above provisions infringe the general validity of click-wrap or web wrap agreements, but could undermine the applicability of certain conditions they contain if they do not comply with the applicable rules. Mr Johnson reiterated that such agreements should be accepted as long as the conditions envisaged were discrete and understandable.56 Given the similarities between English contract law and South African law, it should be argued that, where a precedent is finally set in the United Kingdom, such judgments should be taken into account when assessing the South African situation.