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.'"

Comments

Re:When you buy a new PC...

[Mr. Slippery]

Your example with the candy and the money would clearly not be considered reasonable.

It is every bit as reasonable as the case with the computer and the right to sue.

If you like, though, replace the content of the "contract" with something more "reasonable" - "By eating this candy, you agree to subscribe to my diet analysis service, cost $10,000 per month, minimum term one year, non-refundable."

Point is, if a piece of paper in a computer box is a valid means of creating a contract, then a piece of paper in a candy box is also a valid means of creating a contract.

I think it's perfectly reasonable for the courts to recognize the impracticality of requiring that EULAs be read or signed before every sale

Impractical for whom? Certainly it would be difficult for predatory companies to screw over customers by means of this despicable institution of the "End User License Agreement" if they were read and signed before sales; customers would tend to say, "screw you", and go simply buy software like they buy books, rather than enter into complex and disadventageous "licenses" for software.

...the summary of the Hill vs. Gateway 2000 decision? The judge makes many good points. At no time while I was reading the summary did I feel that the court had lost its grip on reality.

Easterbrook claims: "Payment preceding the revelation of full terms is common for air transportation, insurance, and many other endeavors. Practical considerations support allowing vendors to enclose the full legal terms with their products. Cashiers cannot be expected to read legal documents to customers before ringing up sales." But that's nonsense. Requiring terms to be disclosed in advance is an enormous market pressure to keep them simple; allowing this "contract-in-a-box" bullshit is laying a trap for the consumer.

The existence of situations where payment precedes revelation of terms is a serious failure, not a justification for creating more such situations!