ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained скачать в хорошем качестве

ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg | 86 F.3d 1447 (1996) Traditional contract law was based on the premise that a buyer and a seller would meet face-to-face. The seller made an offer, the buyer accepted it, and a contract was born. But by the middle of the 20th century, technology and modern commerce demanded new, streamlined approaches to contract law. To this end, most states enacted the Uniform Commercial Code, also known as the UCC. But in the electronic age, new sales methods continue to emerge. And in ProCD versus Zeidenberg, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals considered how to apply traditional contract rules and the UCC to software sales. ProCD compiled and sold databases of telephone numbers. It sold expensive, complex, searchable versions of its database to commercial customers. It also sold an inexpensive version of its database to individual consumers. This consumer version was called Selectphone and came as a boxed set of CD-ROMs. The box carried a clear notice that said additional contract terms were laid out in an enclosed license. Inside was a shrinkwrap license, so named because the customer had to open the box and the shrinkwrap packaging to read it. The license was printed in the user’s manual and encoded in the software so that it appeared onscreen every time the user opened the database. Among its terms, ProCD’s shrinkwrap license prohibited commercial use of the Selectphone database. Matthew Zeidenberg bought the Selectphone consumer package from a retail store. He then formed a company that resold the database information to commercial buyers for far less than ProCD charged. ProCD sued Zeidenberg and his company, seeking an injunction prohibiting commercial dissemination of ProCD’s database information in violation of the license. The federal district court in Wisconsin denied the injunction. The judge reasoned that Zeidenberg couldn’t have known about these license terms when he bought the database, since they were hidden inside the packaging. Therefore, he couldn’t have agreed to them and wasn’t bound by them. ProCD appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/procd-i... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/procd-i... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook ►   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter ►   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries