About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (Spring 2024)

handle is hein.ali/relwcc0010 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2024 Citations CONSUMER CONTRACTS (DRAFTS) § 3. Adoption of a Modification of Standard Contract Terms C.A.9, 2023. Quot. in sup., com. (3) quot. in sup. (quot. in sup. T.D. No. 2, 2022). Driver who made deliveries for operator of an online marketplace on a contract basis filed a class action against operator, alleging that it violated federal and state laws by monitoring and wiretapping drivers' conversations when they communicated during off hours in closed social-media groups. The district court denied defendant's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to its updated terms of service. This court affirmed, holding, inter alia, that plaintiff was not bound by the updated terms of service. The court explained that, under Restatement of Consumer Contracts § 3, defendant's general email communications stating that the updates took place did not constitute reasonable notice of its proposed modified terms and did not provide reasonable opportunities for plaintiff to reject the proposed terms; furthermore, previous versions of the terms of service stating the possibility of future modifications similarly did not give plaintiff notice. Jackson v. Amazon.com, Inc., 65 F.4th 1093, 1100, 1101 Ariz.2023. Cit. in ftn. and adopted; subsec. (a)(2) cit. in sup.; subsec. (b) quot. in ftn. (citing and quoting § 3 of T.D. No. 2, 2022). Customer filed a class action in federal court against credit union, alleging that it used ambiguous and misleading language concerning its overdraft fees in violation of federal law. After credit union moved to compel customer to arbitrate pursuant to its updated terms and conditions, which customer had neither viewed nor affirmatively opted out of, the district court certified questions for review. This court adopted Restatement of the Law, Consumer Contracts § 3 in holding that a business could modify non-negotiated, standardized terms governing an on-going, at-will, consumer- business relationship if it showed that the contract's initial terms expressly notified the consumer that it could make future changes to the terms, that it gave-and the consumer received-reasonable notice of the modification and an opportunity to opt out without penalty, and that the consumer continued the relationship past a reasonable opt-out period. Cornell v. Desert Financial Credit Union, 524 P.3d 1133, 1135, 1336, 1139, 1140. § 5. Unconscionability C.A.9, 2023. Quot. in diss. op. (quoting § 5 of D.D., 2017). Trade association for airlines sued city that owned and operated an airport after it enacted an ordinance requiring airlines using its airport to provide COPYRIGHT (2024 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most