Assessment Description
The law (and court findings) sometimes interpret this differently in different courts.
Research current law and case studies similar to Groff v. America Online, Inc., File No. C.A. No. PC 97-0331, 1998 W L 307001 (R.I. Superior Ct., May 27, 1998). In 500-750 words, present your case for why this decision is still correct or why the decision in the 2019 construct would/should be different. Support your rationales with current case law examples.
Assessment
Current law and case studies similar to Groff v. America Online
Yes, services that are entered online often show “I agree”, which is likely to be an enforceable button. Thus, this happens on a legal order that includes the users to agree with terms and condition which is often offered through online services, in order to create a legally enforceable “agreement”, in addition to this, all the users can demonstrate a variety of ways while depending on the words or the deeds, removing from the traditional enforceable, traditional agreements, with an electronic signature in the United States.
Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998, mainly focuses on the enforceability of the terms and conditions of AOL’s click-wrap license. Thus, in the course of dismissing the plaintiff’s suit based on an improper venue, the court mainly affirms a validity with an agreement to enter into America Online, Inc and one of the customers. Thus, plaintiff Groff mainly charges based on the offers that are violated with a Rhode Island, based on an Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Act. This is based on the AOL organization that deals with the incapability in order to provide, as well as offer the services based on the incapability that offers the services based on the number of users of AOL is expected to accept an offer. Thus, this case mainly seeks to prepare information based on the theory of the defendant that prepared the contract, a plaintiff is under the obligation in order to agree with the terms and conditions (Internetlibrary.com 1998). Thus, the plaintiff has the opinion in order to refuse the various services tied to the contract by the plaintiff. Therefore, the court gives out its policy with a general rule under the party based on signing an instrument that manifests the assent while complaining his read on the instrument in order to understand the content. Therefore, the court mentions the notion, that the plaintiff has effectively, ‘signed’, the agreement by clicking on ‘I agree’ even twice. Therefore, the Supreme Court mainly mentions the circumstances, that should be heard on the complaint to read and requires to be bound by the terms of his agreement. Therefore, the court as indicated in the Groff and AOL based on the parties binding the analysis of the validity to a forum on the selection clause based on the issue. Another factor, from the court, is based on the factors of the court in order to analyze the validity of the clauses based on the location of the parties so that they can enter into a contract. Thus, the court often comments on the points which are provided on the belief of the plaintiff and the defendant were bonded with an agreement.
As compared with Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998,;-DeFontes v. Dell Computers Corp is based on the plaintiff Mary DeFontes and Nicholas Long have purported with the representatives of a class based on the person, who have purchased the computers from defendants of the Dell Computers Corporation which is affiliated with others. Therefore, the plaintiff consumers have brought a class action putative suit against the defendant, alleging for collecting tax in a different mode, from the purchase of the optional service contracts which is violated under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. On the other hand, the defendant filed a case of a motion to stay with the proceedings and compel arbitration, citing the arbitration provision with the parties that purported agreement. In this case, the court mentioned about the trial court properly denied the defendants’ motion (Lexisnexis.com 2021). Thus, this mainly compels the arbitration on the grounds of the plaintiffs who did not agree to the bound of the terms and conditions as per the agreement imposed earlier. Therefore, the court has also found that the language used by the Dell Corporation, which is used in their terms and conditions, so that they could not say a reasonable apparent made towards the plaintiffs to reject the terms simply by returning its goods. Therefore, the court mainly determines about being too inferential steps which are required for the plaintiffs, as this case has too many relevancy as well as provisions left in terms of ambiguity. Thus, these cases aid with the aspect on the contract law basis which is followed in the recent contract law also. Thus, these two cases are too crucial because, both cases are levied on misleading terms and conditions, which is often enforced by the organization on the plaintiffs, where the plaintiff has no idea about the reality. In the case of Groff v. America Online, Inc., 1998, the plaintiff Groff, clicked the ‘I agree’ not once but twice, where it is levied that they he has to move on with the contract stated in the agreement, which is unknown to the plaintiff. As compared with this, to the other case, DeFontes v. Dell Computers Corp shows that plaintiffs have claimed that they did not know about the tax they owed from the company, which was not mentioned in their terms and conditions.
References
Groff v. America Online, Inc., PC 97-0331 (1998), C.A. No. PC 97-0331 (R.I. Super. May. 27, 1998)
Internetlibrary.com (1998). Groff v. America Online, Inc., PC 97-0331 (1998), Retrieved from http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case20.cfm [Retrieved on 4th January 2022]
Lexisnexis.com (2021). DeFontes v. Dell, Inc. – 984 A.2d 1061 (R.I. 2009). Retrieved from https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-defontes-v-dell-inc [Retrieved on 4th January 2022]
