The Court of Cassation of Palestine (محكمة النقض الفلسطينية), the highest ordinary court of appeal in the West Bank, delivered a significant judgment on the enforceability of electronic contracts and the scope of consumer protection in online distance selling. The dispute concerned a Ramallah consumer who ordered a smartphone through an online merchant operating a storefront on a social-media marketplace, paid the full price by electronic transfer, and received a device that was materially different from the one advertised and defective within days of delivery. The merchant refused a refund, relying on a click-through clause in its terms purporting to exclude all returns and withdrawals. The Court held that (i) a distance sale concluded through an electronic platform is a valid and binding contract where the consumer's consent is established by authenticated electronic records, satisfying the writing and signature requirements of the Electronic Transactions Law No. 15 of 2018; (ii) the statutory right of withdrawal (cooling-off period) conferred on consumers by the Consumer Protection Law No. 21 of 2018 applies to online distance sales, and a merchant's unilateral terms purporting to exclude that right are void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy; and (iii) in a dispute over the conformity of goods sold at a distance, the burden of proving that conforming goods were delivered and that the consumer was clearly informed of the mandatory terms lies on the merchant. The decision is the leading Palestinian authority on the intersection of electronic-transactions law and consumer protection, and it aligns Palestinian jurisprudence with the regional and international trend toward recognising the validity of electronic commerce while subjecting it to mandatory consumer safeguards.
Palestine's legal framework for electronic commerce rests on the Electronic Transactions Law No. 15 of 2018 (قانون المعاملات الإلكترونية رقم 15 لسنة 2018), which gives electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic contracts the same legal force as their paper counterparts, and on the Consumer Protection Law No. 21 of 2018 (قانون حماية المستهلك رقم 21 لسنة 2018), which confers on consumers a range of mandatory rights, including a statutory period within which a consumer who buys goods at a distance may withdraw from the contract without penalty. In 2023, the respondent, a Ramallah-based consumer, purchased a smartphone advertised as a new, sealed flagship model from the claimant, an online merchant trading through a social-media storefront, for a price paid in full by electronic transfer. The merchant's standard terms, accepted by the consumer through a single click before checkout, stated that all sales were final and that no returns, exchanges, or withdrawals would be accepted under any circumstances. When the device arrived, it proved to be a refurbished unit of a different specification that malfunctioned within days. The consumer demanded a refund and rescission of the contract; the merchant refused, invoking the "final sale" clause and arguing, in the alternative, that no binding contract had been formed because there was no paper signature. The consumer sued for rescission, a refund of the price, and compensation. The court of first instance found that a valid electronic contract had been concluded but held the consumer bound by the "final sale" clause; the Court of Appeal reversed, holding the clause void and ordering a refund. The merchant appealed to the Court of Cassation.
The Court of Cassation framed three questions for determination: (1) Whether a contract concluded entirely through an electronic platform, without a paper document or wet-ink signature, is valid and binding under Palestinian law, and what evidence is sufficient to establish the consumer's consent; (2) Whether the statutory right of withdrawal conferred on consumers by the Consumer Protection Law applies to distance sales conducted online, and whether a merchant may, by unilateral standard terms, exclude or limit that right; and (3) In a dispute over whether goods sold at a distance conform to the description advertised, upon which party the burden of proof rests.
The Court of Cassation dismissed the merchant's appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal's judgment, issuing the following holdings:
(1) Electronic contracts are valid and binding, and consent may be established by authenticated electronic records. The Court held that the Electronic Transactions Law accords electronic records and electronic signatures the same legal effect as their paper equivalents, so that a contract concluded through an electronic platform is not invalid merely because it lacks a paper document or a wet-ink signature. The consumer's consent to the sale was established by the authenticated electronic records of the transaction — the order, the acceptance, and the payment confirmation — which together evidenced an offer and acceptance meeting the requirements for the formation of a valid contract. The Court rejected the merchant's contention that the absence of a handwritten signature rendered the transaction void.
(2) The statutory cooling-off right applies to online distance sales and cannot be excluded by unilateral terms. The Court held that the Consumer Protection Law confers on the consumer a mandatory right to withdraw from a distance contract within the statutory period, and that this right is a rule of public policy from which the parties may not derogate by agreement. The merchant's "final sale" clause, which purported to exclude all returns and withdrawals, was therefore void and unenforceable, and could not bar the consumer from rescinding the contract and recovering the price. The Court observed that the mandatory character of the cooling-off right reflects the protective purpose of consumer legislation: in a distance sale the consumer cannot inspect the goods before contracting, and so must be given a genuine opportunity to withdraw once the goods are received.
(3) The merchant bears the burden of proving delivery of conforming goods and disclosure of mandatory terms. The Court held that, where a consumer alleges that goods delivered under a distance contract do not conform to the description advertised, the burden of proving that conforming goods were delivered rests on the merchant, as the party in control of the supply and the description of the goods. The merchant had failed to discharge that burden; the evidence established that the device supplied was a refurbished unit of a different specification. The Court likewise held that the burden of proving that the consumer was clearly and prominently informed of the mandatory terms of the contract lies on the merchant, and that a single click-through acceptance of standard terms did not, without more, establish that the consumer's attention had been drawn to the terms the merchant now sought to enforce.
This judgment is the leading Palestinian statement on the validity of electronic contracts and the consumer safeguards that govern online distance selling, and it arrives at a moment of rapid growth in Palestinian e-commerce. With physical retail frequently disrupted by movement restrictions and closures, Palestinian consumers and traders have shifted substantially toward electronic marketplaces and social-media commerce, yet the legal incidents of those transactions had remained unsettled until this decision. By confirming that a contract formed entirely through electronic records and signatures is valid and binding, the Court has given e-commerce the certainty it requires to flourish; by simultaneously holding that the statutory cooling-off right is a mandatory rule of public policy that cannot be excluded by standard terms, and that the burden of proving conformity and disclosure rests on the merchant, it has rebalanced the relationship in favour of the consumer who cannot inspect goods before purchase. The decision also carries clear practical guidance for merchants and platforms operating in the Palestinian market: standard terms must not purport to exclude mandatory consumer rights; descriptions of goods must be accurate; and merchants must retain the electronic records that demonstrate delivery of conforming goods and the clear disclosure of terms. Practitioners note the resonance of the Court's reasoning with the electronic-transactions and consumer-protection legislation of Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States, and observe that the same principles are likely to govern the growing fields of electronic payments and platform-based services. The case is expected to be cited wherever Palestinian courts are asked to reconcile the enforceability of electronic commerce with the protective aims of consumer legislation, and with the Sharia-derived principles of good faith and the prohibition of gharar that underpin Palestinian commercial law.
"A contract concluded through electronic means is a contract like any other: it is formed by offer and acceptance, and its validity does not depend on the presence of a paper document or a handwritten signature, but on the existence of consent evidenced by authenticated electronic records. Yet the freedom of electronic commerce is not unlimited. The consumer who buys at a distance, unable to inspect the goods before contracting, enjoys a right of withdrawal that is a rule of public policy; a merchant cannot, by a clause in its standard terms, deprive the consumer of that right. And where conformity is disputed, it is for the merchant, who controls the supply and the description of the goods, to prove that conforming goods were delivered." — Justice of the Court of Cassation of Palestine