Arbitration Clause in Computer Purchase Contract Unenforceable Where Consumer’s Right to Reject Additional Contract Terms Was Not Clearly Explained
30 12 2009Since the Seventh Circuit opinion in ProCD v. Zeidenberg (7th Cir. 1996), judicial analysis of standard form contracts has proceeded along lines that have, in general, been more favorable to the efforts of sellers and licensors seeking to enforce the provisions of “agreement now, terms later” contracts. . . .
Over time, the ProCD v. Zeidenberg approach to later-presented terms has become the majority view. But just because a court adopts the ProCD v. Zeidenberg analysis, it will not necessarily find that a “terms later” contract is enforceable. That was the case in Defontes v. Dell, decided on December 10 by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.
The case involves a dispute between Dell and consumers who claim they were wrongfully assessed a state tax on their purchase of service contracts in conjunction with a computer purchase. . . .
In endorsing the ProCD v. Zeidenberg analysis of later-presented terms, the Rhode Island Supreme Court commented:
The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2009/12/articles/contracts/arbitration-clause-in-computer-purchase-contract-unenforceable-where-consumers-right-to-reject-additional-contract-terms-was-not-clearly-explained/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.
