The central task in this study is to discover and analyse the legal framework applicable to input errors in electronic contracts. The study analyses the law of South Africa, the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ECT Act) to be more specific, and the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the UNECIC). The ECT Act is the statute regulating electronic communications and transactions in South Africa. It was passed by the South African parliament in 2002. Almost all provisions of the ECT Act are based on the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) .However, section 20 thereof, which deals with input errors, was not based on the Model law, but on provisions from statutes of leading jurisdictions.1 The UNECIC is a new international convention by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as UNCITRAL). The Convention came into operation on the 1st of March 2013,2 and is the first United Nations convention that deals with electronic communications. Article 12 thereof deals with automated transactions, and section 14 with input errors. These are the two provisions that shall be analysed in relation to the UNECIC in this work. With the UNECIC having come into full operation, there is a real need to harmonise domestic laws with it. In various jurisdictions, including Singapore3 and Australia,4 the statutes governing electronic communications have been amended with some provisions of the UNECIC. Article 14 is one of the provisions of the UNECIC which have been domesticated in both jurisdictions. Judged against the UNECIC, a number of issues relating to input errors in the ECT Act are inconsistent with the new international standards embodied in the UNECIC. This work recommends that South Africa must adopt the UNECIC, and secondly that some of the provisions dealing with input errors in the ECT Act must be aligned with the UNECIC by amendment. / LLM (Import and Export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

The central task in this study is to discover and analyse the legal framework applicable to input errors in electronic contracts. The study analyses the law of South Africa, the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ECT Act) to be more specific, and the United Nations Convention on the Use of Electronic Communications in International Contracts (2005) (hereinafter referred to as the UNECIC). The ECT Act is the statute regulating electronic communications and transactions in South Africa. It was passed by the South African parliament in 2002. Almost all provisions of the ECT Act are based on the United Nations Model Law on Electronic Commerce (1996) .However, section 20 thereof, which deals with input errors, was not based on the Model law, but on provisions from statutes of leading jurisdictions.1 The UNECIC is a new international convention by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as UNCITRAL). The Convention came into operation on the 1st of March 2013,2 and is the first United Nations convention that deals with electronic communications. Article 12 thereof deals with automated transactions, and section 14 with input errors. These are the two provisions that shall be analysed in relation to the UNECIC in this work. With the UNECIC having come into full operation, there is a real need to harmonise domestic laws with it. In various jurisdictions, including Singapore3 and Australia,4 the statutes governing electronic communications have been amended with some provisions of the UNECIC. Article 14 is one of the provisions of the UNECIC which have been domesticated in both jurisdictions. Judged against the UNECIC, a number of issues relating to input errors in the ECT Act are inconsistent with the new international standards embodied in the UNECIC. This work recommends that South Africa must adopt the UNECIC, and secondly that some of the provisions dealing with input errors in the ECT Act must be aligned with the UNECIC by amendment. / LLM (Import and Export Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

<div>Typing in Japanese is a difficult process for novice and intermediate learners of Japanese due</div><div>to the writing system of the Japanese language and its comparatively involved input method on a</div><div>keyboard. Considering that spell checkers, which enable the user to check and correct their own</div><div>errors and select the correct kanji word, are designed for native speakers, the learners of Japanese</div><div>as a foreign language (JFL) may not recognize their spelling errors and are thus unable to selfcorrect using this built-in tool.</div><div>The present study addresses this problem and conducts an experiment to evaluate the</div><div>effectiveness of a visual feedback tool by its error recognition rate on the learners spelling errors</div><div>when typing in Japanese. The participants were 46 beginner level JFL learners in a third semester</div><div>Japanese course, and the majority consist of native speakers of Chinese or English. The</div><div>participants participated in two experimental sessions. In both sessions, participants were audio</div><div>recorded while reading aloud a list of words in Japanese for pronunciation analysis and screen</div><div>recorded while typing the same list of Japanese words. These recordings are used to analyze the</div><div>characteristics of error patterns in both pronunciation and typing. During the typing sessions, visual</div><div>feedback is provided to the participants via a customized dictionary tool when participants make</div><div>a spelling error.</div><div>The results show that regardless of the native language, the learners have difficulty on certain</div><div>words that include long vowels or double consonants. The recorded error patterns align with the</div><div>findings of previous studies (Hatasa, 2001; Nakazawa, 2003; Tsuchiya, 2000), and the visual</div><div>feedback showed an average error recognition rate of 76% of the participants’ spelling errors. The</div><div>participants also assessed the dictionary tool in terms of usability, and their responses indicate that</div><div>such tools are very useful during typing. The researcher concludes that using a visual feedback</div><div>dictionary tool is effective in recognizing the spelling errors of the learners when typing, and it</div><div>increases the learner’s awareness of spelling accuracy.</div>