Wrap Agreement Meaning

Gateway, Inc., which found these agreements unenforceable (e.B Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.[3]), did not comment on the shrink film contracts as a whole. These decisions are divided on the issue of consent, the first being that only an objective manifestation of consent is required, while the second requires at least the possibility of subjective consent. In particular, the Netscape contract was rejected because it did not have an explicit consent decision (no “I agree” button) and because the contract was not presented directly to the user (users had to click on a link to access the terms). However, the Court stated in the present case that “a reasonably visible notice of the existence of contractual terms and the clear demonstration of consumers` ability to comply with those conditions are essential for electronic negotiations to be honest and credible”. Specht, 306 F.3d 17. Shrink Film Licenses: The Debate Continues, Unicorn, D. A. (1997). Idea, 38, 383. The Death of Copyright: Enforceability of Shrinkwrap Licensing Agreements, Minassian, A. (1997).

UCLA L. Rev., 45, 569. Will Shrinkwrap Suffocate Fair Use, Morris, E. (2006). Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. LJ, 23, 237. It is best to indicate the existence of the contract via a pop-up window with a checkbox containing a language such as “I accept the terms and conditions”. There should also be a hyperlink to a web page that documents the full consent that the user accepts. Courts are divided on whether a consumer accepts the terms of a shrink film contract because he pays for the product and goes so far as to open the packaging but has no real knowledge of what the terms are until he opens the packaging to read them. .