Hill v. Gateway

• Gateway 2000, Inc. = "Gateway" = defendant = computer seller
• the Hill couple = "Hill"
• Hill buys a computer from Gateway over the phone.
• Along with their computer, Hill received a printed terms of sale. The included arbitration clause required the customer to return the computer to be returned within 30 days to avoid being bound by the arbitration clause.

After much longer than 30 days, the Hills could not get Gateway to resolve their computer problems.

Hill sued Gateway in the Chicago's federal district court (northern district of Illinois).

In accordance with the sales terms, Gateway sought arbitration.

Gateway lost.

Are the terms contained inside a product's box binding on a buyer, when those terms & conditions aren't available to the buyer until after the product has already been purchased?

The terms inside a product's packaging are binding, as long as the buyer has a reasonable opportunity to review & reject them by returning the product.

Reversed. Arbitration is ordered

In ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 1996, Judge Easterbrook issued a similar opinion.

Caveat emptor https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/caveat_emptor

• Contracts_Ayres/9th_ed._Outline#G._Unconscionability