 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
ProCD v. Zeidenberg: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit |citation=86 F.3d 1447 (1996) |date=1996 |subject=Contracts }} '''Facts''' Plaintiff complied from more than...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox Case Brief | {{Infobox Case Brief | ||
|court= | |court=7th Circuit | ||
|citation=86 F.3d 1447 (1996) | |citation=86 F.3d 1447 (1996) | ||
|date=1996 | |date=June 20, 1996 | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|case_treatment=No | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/procd-incorporated-v-zeidenberg | |||
|case_text_source=CaseText | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/procd-inc-v-zeidenberg | |||
|case_text_source=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/procd-inc-v-zeidenberg | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link}} | |||
}} | }} | ||
'''Facts''' | '''Facts''' | ||
Revision as of 19:27, June 23, 2023
| ProCD v. Zeidenberg | |
| Court | 7th Circuit |
|---|---|
| Citation | 86 F.3d 1447 (1996) |
| Date decided | June 20, 1996 |
Resources
- Case text at CaseText
- Case text at https://www.quimbee.com/cases/procd-inc-v-zeidenberg
- [{{{link}}} Case text]
Facts
Plaintiff complied from more than 3,000 telephone directories a database that was effectual in returning queries for companies and for individuals in a program called SelectPhone. The plaintiff sold to companies at a price higher than individuals, because of the benefits of price discrimination. Every box containing the consumer product declares that the software comes with restrictions stated in an enclosed license, but the terms themselves do not appear on the outside of the package. Defendant bought a consumer package of SelectPhone, but decided to ignore the license and resold the software for cheaper over the Web.
Procedural History
District court ruled that the licenses were ineffectual because their terms do not appear on the outside of the packages.
Issues
Whether a notice of a license on the outside of a package with the terms of the license printed on the inside of the package constitutes a binding contract.
Holding/Decision
Reversed and remanded.
Reasoning
Plaintiff extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; defendant inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods.
