ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 11
AGREEMENT IN TRADITIONAL
AND E-CONTRACTS
11-1A. Definiteness of terms
(Chapter 11—Page 227)
The court determined that the September 1996 document was not a valid, enforceable contract and
ruled in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which
11-2A. Agreement
(Chapter 11—Pages 222 & 227)
B-46 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 11
otherwise indicating a willingness to bargain is not an offer if the person to whom it is addressed knows
or has reason to know that the person making it is only expressing the possibility of entering into a
11-3A. Intention
(Chapter 11—Pages 222–224)
The court granted Horipro’s motion for summary judgment. The court reiterated Cusano’s argument
11-4A. Agreement
(Chapter 11—Page 227)
The Harlesses filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted. The Connors appealed to
a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The appellate court
11-5A. Browse-wrap terms
(Chapter 11—Pages 235–236)
The court granted Tickets.Com’s motion with respect to the breach of contract claim. The court
explained that Ticketmaster’s claim made “reference to the ‘shrinkwrap license’ cases, where the
11-6A. Shrink-wrap agreements
(Chapter 11—Page 235)
The court ordered a judgment for ICode, dismissing the suit. The court noted that “forum selection
11-7A. Click-on agreements
(Chapter 11—Page 235)
A click-warp agreement is generally construed as a contract, and as long as a party has the opportunity
to review the terms and decline to accept, it is generally held to be enforceable. In this case, the court
11-8A. Online acceptance
(Chapter 11—Pages 236–238)
B-48 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 11
denied legal effect solely because it is in electronic form. Thus, under either of these statutes, Bucher’s
name on the e-mail could be considered a valid signature. Outside these laws, an important
11-9A. Shrink-wrap agreements and browse-wrap terms
(Chapter 11—Pages 235–236)
The court denied Dell’s motion to compel arbitration, holding that the “Terms and Conditions
Agreement” was invalid. The court reasoned, “Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to read the terms
11-10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The court concluded that McMillan had been paying the premiums to maintain the policy,
that Hibbard was required to perform the agreement with McMillan, and that Hibbard had been
“stubbornly litigious.” The court ordered Hibbard to pay McMillan $8,226 plus $304.20 in interest as
reimbursement for premiums paid, as well as $2,292.57 in attorney’s fees. Hibbard appealed to a state
2. The limits to parties’ freedom to contract, as indicated by the discussion of the principles
in this chapter, include the requirements for an effective offer and its acceptance. Among those
requirements, and actually contended in the Hibbard case, is the definiteness of the terms. Hibbard
argued in part that the terms in his agreement with McMillan were not sufficiently clear or precise for a
court to provide an appropriate remedy.