Zucker purchased a mobile phone that included LookUP’s software, a database product containing information from 3,000 telephone directories. Every mobile phone sold with the LookUP software was wrapped in plastic shrinkwrap and prominently featured text notifying buyers that an enclosed license restricted use of the LookUP software product. After removing the cellophane cover and opening the mobile phone box, buyers could access the printed LookUP license. Moreover, consumers could not use the LookUP software product without first accepting the license posted on the screen. This license prohibited buyers from using the database commercially. Zucker, a college student, bought a mobile phone with LookUP software and then resold the database’s information on the internet to make some extra money for tuition. LookUP sued Zucker, who argued that the license did not apply to him because he never agreed to it. Zucker claimed the phone he purchased was not wrapped in plastic and was presented to him unboxed. Zucker also claimed he never read the license agreement because he “just ‘clicked’ through the screens. 1. Did Zucker enter into a valid and enforceable contract with LookUP, under the U.C.C. that included the terms of the license? Why or why not? 2. Did Zucker enter into a valid and enforceable contract with LookUP under the common law applicable to contracts? Why or why not? 3. Considering the position of Zucker, as a seller of information on the internet, what is the business lesson to be learned? 4. Consider the position of LookUP, as a software company, what is the business lesson to be learned?
Zucker purchased a mobile phone that included LookUP’s software, a database product containing information from 3,000 telephone directories. Every mobile phone sold with the LookUP software was wrapped in plastic shrinkwrap and prominently featured text notifying buyers that an enclosed license restricted use of the LookUP software product. After removing the cellophane cover and opening the mobile phone box, buyers could access the printed LookUP license. Moreover, consumers could not use the LookUP software product without first accepting the license posted on the screen. This license prohibited buyers from using the database commercially. Zucker, a college student, bought a mobile phone with LookUP software and then resold the database’s information on the internet to make some extra money for tuition. LookUP sued Zucker, who argued that the license did not apply to him because he never agreed to it. Zucker claimed the phone he purchased was not wrapped in plastic and was presented to him unboxed. Zucker also claimed he never read the license agreement because he “just ‘clicked’ through the screens.
1. Did Zucker enter into a valid and enforceable contract with LookUP, under the U.C.C. that included the terms of the license? Why or why not?
2. Did Zucker enter into a valid and enforceable contract with LookUP under the common law applicable to contracts? Why or why not?
3. Considering the position of Zucker, as a seller of information on the internet, what is the business lesson to be learned?
4. Consider the position of LookUP, as a software company, what is the business lesson to be learned?
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 6 steps
