Slashdot Mirror
Man Sues Gateway Because He Can't Read EULA
Scoopy writes "California resident Dennis Sheehan took Gateway to small claims court after he reportedly received a defective computer and little technical support from the PC manufacturer. Gateway responded with their own lawyer and a 2-inch thick stack of legal docs, and claimed that Sheehan violated the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue and settle these cases in private arbitration. Sheehan responded that he never read the EULA, which pops up when the user first starts the computer, because the graphics were scrambled — precisely the problem he had complained to tech support in the first place. A judge sided with Sheehan on May 24 and the case will proceed to small claims court. A lawyer is quoted as saying that Sheehan, a high school dropout who is arguing his own case, is in for a world of hurt: 'This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway...By winning, he's lost.'"
Seriously. Have you? Can you keep a straight face and tell me you read all those legalese crap? I didn't.
First of all, it can be summed up into "We may do everything, you may do nothing, essentially, you're a dork for using our software". And second, almost all of them violate our consumer protection laws.
So, why bother wasting time?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
you're fscked! Hire me!
All 'not saying / just saying' aside, this could prove an interesting testbed for EULAs of this nature.
Dont companies these days thing its a bad thing to sue their own customers? Let alone make headlines for doing? Really what do they gain?
B5 71 ED FB 55 D6 4E 68 07 25 E2 FA CA 93 F0 2F, is mine! All mine!
even if it was in print, i'm sure he didn't sign it, and therefore, still did not agree to it.
~/.sig: No such file or directory
I believe that we may be approaching critical mass (in decades or centuries, not years) within the imposition of legal absurdity upon humankind. I expect that the populace will ultimately become so oppressed by the duress of corporate greed that uses legal thuggery as it's enforcer, that humanity will just quit accepting it and reject the entire premise of law.
If there is wisdom within the world of corporate law, someone will realise that this is approaching and will work for internal reform, before external reform arrives as a consequence of insults to humanity like this.
I don't think the legality/enforceability of EULAs in general is being disputed here. Gateway is saying Sheehan can't sue because it's forbidden in the EULA, and Sheehan is saying he never saw or agreed to the EULA. I think all we could use this as precedent for is enforcing a EULA that the customer simply may have seen and agreed to, and I doubt that will fly here.
(IANAL)
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
Exactly. He's already made Gateway spend money not only on his tech support calls, but on a lawyer who doesn't come cheap. At some point, it will be in Gateway's interest to just cut their losses and refund the money. The longer he holds out, the more likely that will happen.
Being a computer user is really tough sometimes: Not only do they expect you to be a computer expert, but they also expect you to be a legal expert.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
> the EULA, which requires that users give up their right to sue
;) I don't know much about US law system but the whole idea looks awkard. In my country you can state whatever bullshit you wish in license agreement or whatever - but it is void unless it is valid with the law. So I could make a license that you own me your liver if you use my software while not drinking milk - but it would be pointless.
Is it even possible in US to get in such agreement? I am Polish.
It is possible in US to just make a license that disallows you to sue by the other party? That is kind of retarded - even if it is possible - what it is for?
I thought that you _ALLWAYS_ have a right to sue (fight for your rights) and nobody can take it from you?
i've always had the opinoin that eula's are not legal, and are just used as a bully tactic. i hope this guy wins.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Abraham Lincoln would have been proud then.
And these blokes need to re-evaluate what they are doing in life
Having said that Abe Lincoln probably would have preferred to finish/receive an education.
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
On the other hand, those guys are generally bought-and-paid for, and many corporations seem to feel that it's in their best interests never to be seen losing.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Conclusion: the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Accept it.
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
HS Dropout or not and I don't care how you look at it he wins no matter what. Just for a lawyer to show it is gonna cost the company 10 times the cost of a new system. When you sue one of these big co's in small claims court they loose no matter what. On top of this ad the bad publicity and they loose 100 times any little monetary claim involved.
So he goes in and does a crappy job arguing his case and looses, well so what he still cost them
100 times the cost of a new system, goes home empty but still stuck it to them.
Got Code?
Think about it. The legal system is often not about right/wrong or justice. It's about business tactics and business advantage. And that's what Gateway's EULA is about, too. And Gateway doesn't have lawyers write them or defend them out of any sense of justice. It's all about business advantage. So, the weird question is how Gateway expects to win any business advantage. They've already lost a lot of good will on this issue alone. They used to be the underdog goodguy. And now, for any of us who cultivated any sense of denial that they've turned to the dark side, the denial is gone. Whether or not the plaintiff prevails, Gateway loses big. The EULA was the right cross, and the lawyer's intemperate remarks were the knockout punch. This is self-inflicted, Gateway. Bye bye. Sadly.
The problem is, if they cave in it may set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the general public to mimic. Then every Tom, Dick and Harry would think they could sue their manufacturers as well (which may very well be their right). No company needs THAT kind of idea getting out.
In all likelihood, however, you're probably right and they'll wind up settling once the media has lost interest.
"This poor guy now faces daunting reality of having to litigate this on appeal against Gateway...By winning, he's lost.'"
What is the cost to Gateway in bad PR?
Either he got a replacement PC or he didn't - I would assume that on delivery someone would have needed to sign for it...
Rule out any shipping mistake or some hare-brained fraud on the customer's part and move on. Sounds easy. Why
send in the lawyers and turn it into a big deal?
The only real benefit of finishing high school is not getting stereotyped by morons like the OP. Myself, I dropped out of high school and started working at 15, as a Lotus Notes developer and network admin. Some people need institutionalized teaching, others find it far too limiting and stifling. If you need an institution to learn something, you really haven't learned anything.
I guess if we call Gateway at 800-369-1409 and say something to the effect that you're not going to buy a f**king Gateway PC because of the way they treated customers like Dennis Sheehan, I wonder if they'll rethink things.
Unlikely.... But I'm gonna call them anyway.... Just for sport.
Place nail here >+
How about putting the EULA outside the box then? The Best Buy near me won't take returns unless the product is defective; not agreeing to the EULA doesn't make the product defective, unfortunately.
OSx86 FTW
A better argument is that since the sale was completed before he was presented with the EULA, you don't have to agree to it, regardless of whatever stupid human tricks the computer makes you do.
Even if he could read the EULA, he would never understand it. How can anyone be expected to give informed consent to legalese gibberish? A team of lawyers might not even agree on exactly what it means. All anyone really understands is that we must click on "Yes" or "Agree" to continue. All EULAs should be thrown out in court.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
And by just taking it up the wazoo, he has lost as well.
I find it hard to believe that the company would claim they sent him a second computer. Is there not a record of shipment? The plaintiff said he didn't receive a replacement computer. If he had signed for a delivery, surely he wouldn't be stupid enough to say he didn't.
But here's the thing I'm having trouble with: Company waste. They are paying their attorneys and the courts system way more than the value of system in question. Shouldn't someone be complaining to the board of directors over crap like this? Not only is the direct accounting of the situation bad business, but the potential for further loss through bad faith dealings and bad word of mouth (not to mention appearances on slashdot) presents such a negative value to the shareholders that someone on the board should be voting some executives out of a job.
I have heard it time and time again on slasdhot that corporations are required by law to create value for the shareholders. Well, here's an example of a corporation acting in a pretty aggressive and vindictive manner costing the company more in direct fees and probably 100 times that in bad word of mouth.
Get a piece of paper, write "I, [Name], have received [product], from [company], in good condition on [date], signed, so and so."
When the delivery guy complains, he can tell you what it really is that he wants you to sign.
- RG>
Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
In this case, there is a good argument there was not proper notice.
There's also a good argument that he did nothing to enter into the agreement. If you buy a car, and there's a cap over the ignition from which a sign is hanging saying that you agree to various terms and conditions if you use the car, that's a pretty shitty way to get someone to enter into a contract, but someone can point to the moment where you agreed to it, or at least failed to raise an objection. If there's a stack of papers in the back seat that you've never seen before telling you that you've forfeited all sorts of rights and incurred all sorts of obligations, that's thinner stuff.
You may be right about "contract iff signature" bullshit in general, but any printed EULA's that were introduced to him only when he received the computer, not during any part of the sale, he didn't sign, didn't mail in, didn't scratch off any of the boxes to see what he won, didn't connect the dots to see what kind of flower they made, they were just foisted upon him without his consideration or consent. It's the same as if Gateway had randomly stopped somebody on the street and handed him a stack of documents that said he could never sue them. That's not a contract. Oh, right. IANAL. I hope that's not a contract.
Finally modding someone offtopic when they rant about what "Begging the Question" means: priceless.
While this is true as far as it goes, a contract will under normal circumstances only form in a two-way exchange - in legal parlance, there must be "consideration" for both parties. Since these EULAs usually don't grant anything to the consumer that they did not already have, they cannot be presumed to automatically form at the time of exchange, which is the normal basis for these things in the absence of a signature. Some form of explicit hoop-jumping, such as a signature, is required to get these one-way things to activate. Corporations like to play games with forced "I agree" buttons; their legitimacy is actually quite weak, and judges will often (although not always) void them if the user hasn't done anything "wrong" and is sufficiently aware to make this argument. You can't force somebody into a contract, and any agreement made under duress is invalid (and the "but they could have returned it to the store, so they had a choice" line does not amuse very many judges, particularly since the store is not legally required to take the computer back if there's nothing wrong with it)
Self-taught pros are a rare exception, most people would be completely helpless without some sort of organized brainwashing like the kind that happens in western schools. In any case, the classroom teaches social interaction (to some extent). It might result in highly social morons, but at least they're social :P People who are moronic AND antisocial are in tough shape.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
yeah, but even if he could SEE and PRESS the button, it still might not be valid. IANAL but many shrink wrap EULA's and licenses have been ruled invalid. Just because they tell you you can't sue them doesn't mean that you can't. There are various rights and protections you have that they can't take away simply by saying "we are taking this right away from you"
"Jazz isn't dead, it just smells funny" ~Frank Zappa
EdelFactor
Nah, it would be "An electronic contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." The whole point of the joke is that a verbal contract isn't written on paper.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
So, how do you decline a EULA?
Do you just send the item back to the seller?, who pays shipping?
Imagine if a few hundred people each ordered a new PC, and found they disliked the EULA, so returned them all?
Because they want more power over the consumer, and that means restricting the consumer even further.
Finally, EULAs are sometimes just as important to you and "throwing them all out" would be idiotic. They often set out things like your warranty coverage and your rights to use software (your "license") that you otherwise wouldn't have the right. Most importantly, it keeps things CHEAPER for you. If every computer/software company had unlimited liability, you would probably be spending considerably more for your purchases.
Shennanigans. Commerce has operated without EULAs just fine for centuries. I never sign a contract when I buy something from a supermarket, or even a big ticket item like a fridge, and somehow those companies don't suffer "unlimited liability" claims. Plenty of businesses have general terms and conditions that aren't disguised as contracts, and they're just as valid -- in fact, probably moreso, as they don't pretend to be something they're not.
Also, tricking people into agreeing to waive their rights is pretty stupid. Even if it were found that a contract was entered into, that sort of term is often thrown out as unreasonable.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
The more enlightened people have realized already that the current system of education is designed to create a workforce of employees, not leaders. The fact that some leaders emerge from our educational system says more about their individual resistance to 'training' than their benefit of it. After all, if education were responsible for their advancement, there would be a lot more advanced people than there are today.
Dropping out of highschool isn't necessarily to his detriment. He may not be able to "get a good job" but he may be able to give you one!
You can't ... sell yourself into slavery.
Sure you can. Just carry a credit card balance.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
All of the most successful people you personally know of are probably dropouts (either high school or college).
Michael Dell is one of them.
The American public school model is meant to grind out factory workers and soldiers. The people that we stole it from don't even use it anymore.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.