Choose one (1) case from the chapters assigned for the week (see below) and provide a summary (approx 150 words) supporting either the plaintiff or the defendant based on the facts of the case and your interpretation of the law. You need to do some research on the case selected and provide links to that research which assisted you in your decision. Check at least 2 other sources as part of your independent research. Respond to another student’s posting for full credit
Chapter 11 Digital Law and E-Commerce
Hubbert v. Dell Corporation
835 N.E.2d 113, 2005 Ill. App. Lexis 808 (2005)
Appellate Court of Illinois
The blue hyperlinks on the defendants web pages, constituting the five-step process for ordering the computers, should be treated the same as a multipage written paper contract.
Hopkins, Justice
Facts
Plaintiffs Dewayne Hubbert, Elden Craft, Chris Grout, and Rhonda Byington purchased computers from Dell Corporation online through Dells website. To make their purchase, each of the plaintiffs completed online order forms on five pages of Dells website. On each of the five pages, Dells terms and conditions of sale were accessible by clicking on a blue hyperlink. To find the terms and conditions, the plaintiffs would have had to click on the blue hyperlink and read the terms and conditions of sale. On the last page of the five-page order form, the following statement appeared: All sales are subject to Dells Terms and Conditions of Sale.
The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Dell, alleging that Dell misrepresented the speed of the microprocessors included in the computers they purchased. Dell made a demand for arbitration, asserting that the plaintiffs were bound by the arbitration agreement that was contained in the terms and conditions of sale. The plaintiffs countered that the arbitration clause was not part of their web contract because the terms and conditions of sale were not conspicuously displayed as part of their web contract. The trial court sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the arbitration clause was unenforceable because the terms and conditions of sale were not adequately communicated to the plaintiffs. Dell appealed.
Issue
Were the terms and conditions of sale adequately communicated to the plaintiffs?
Language of the Court
We find that the online contract included the Terms and Conditions of Sale. The blue hyperlink entitled Terms and Conditions of Sale appeared on numerous web pages the plaintiffs completed in the ordering process. The blue hyperlinks on the defendants web pages, constituting the five-step process for ordering the computers, should be treated the same as a multipage written paper contract. The blue hyperlink simply takes a person to another page of the contract, similar to turning the page of a written paper contract. Although there is no conspicuousness requirement, the hyperlinks contrasting blue type makes it conspicuous. Because the Terms and Conditions of Sale were a part of the online contract, the plaintiffs were bound by the Terms and Conditions of Sale, including the arbitration clause.
Decision
The appellate court held that Dells terms and conditions of sale, which were accessible by clicking on a blue hyperlink and which included the arbitration clause, were part of the web contract between the plaintiffs and Dell. The appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court and held in favor of Dell.
Critical Legal Thinking Questions
1. Did the plaintiffs act ethically in claiming that the terms and conditions of sale were not included in their web contract? Do you read the terms and conditions of sale when you purchase goods over the internet?
The two features on the following page discuss a federal statute that established rules for electronic contracts and electronic signatures.
150 WORDS OF SUMMARY AT LEAST THEN RESPONSE TO THE TWO BELOW DISCUSSIONS: you can use HeinOnline, FindLaw.com,
RESPONSE TO JANANI:
For this week’s discussion, I would like to select the case of “Sturdza v. United Arab Emirates” from Chapter 9 – Formation and Requirements of Contracts, from the text book.
United Arab Emirates (UAE) conducted a competition to select the architect for it’s embassy building in Washington DC. Elena Sturdza, an architect licensed in Texas and Maryland, but not the District of Columbia, entered a design and won the competition. Several contracts were exchanged between Elena Sturdza and UAE. However, UAE ultimately did not sign a contract with her, and instead retained architect Angelos Demetriou.
Ms. Sturdza filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against UAE and Mr. Demetriou. Included in her Complaint were alleged claims of breach of contract and quantum merit against UAE. The plaintiiff argued that they had substantially performed her obligations with regard to the design of the embassy. The court ruled against the plaintiff and I agree with the courts decision for the following reasons:
When MS. Sturzda entered into the contract she was not permitted to practice architecture in D.C. The plaintiff in fact performed some preliminary work without appropriate licenses. The dismissal of the contract by UAE in this case is valid and can be considered inline with “Discharge by Impossibility to perform”. Hence, legally the defendant is at right to dismiss the contract. The courts infact found the contract unenforceable and void, which is valid.
The replacement selected in this case was another competitor. UAE did not find someone outside the entire efforts and stayed true to their initially advertised promise or plan. This makes their side of the story ethically sound as well.
RESPONSE TO DAVE:
The case that I chose to review this week is Case 10.2 Federal Court Case Parol Evidence Rule in the matter of pilgrim’s pride corporation. In this case Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation (PPC) operated a chicken processing plant and had a contract with local chicken growers to provide the chickens. In return for growing the chickens PPC could pay for the feed, however in the contract that was signed between both sides PPC maintained the right to discontinue services at any point between a specific time period of the chickens maturity. Once the prices of the feed increase and the price of chicken decreases their company was losing money, so in efforts to remain profitable they broke off the partnership. In the case the judge ruled in favor of PPC signed the agreed upon terms were in writing on a contract signed by both sides. However, the chicken growers brought up that PPC had made “oral” agreements with them that were not stated on the contract, and that they were under the impression that this would be a longer term partnership. I agree with the judge in this case, that PPC was only held liable to what was in the contract and not the oral agreements. According to some of the rules that make verbal agreements not binding are when selling goods valued greater than $500, which in this case I would imagine they were selling more than $500 worth of chickens.
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]