| | This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. | Shrink wrap contracts are license agreements or other terms and conditions of a (putatively) contractual nature which can only be read and accepted by the consumer after opening the product. The term describes the shrinkwrap plastic wrapping used to coat software boxes, though these contracts are not limited to the software industry. Web-wrap, click-wrap and browse-wrap are related terms which refer to license agreements in software which is downloaded or used over the internet. Image File history File links Gnome-globe. ...
Shrinkwrap is a material made up of polymer plastic, usually PVC with a mix of polyesters. ...
Computer software (or simply software) refers to one or more computer programs and data held in the storage of a computer for some purpose. ...
A clickwrap agreement (also known as a clickthrough agreement or clickwrap license) is a common type of agreement (often used in connection with software licenses). ...
Software licenses are commonly called End User License Agreements or EULAs. A software license is a legal agreement which may take the form of a proprietary or gratuitous license as well as a memorandum of contract between a producer and a user of computer software. ...
“Eula†redirects here. ...
United States
The legal status of shrink wrap contracts in the US is somewhat unclear. One line of cases follows ProCD v. Zeidenberg which held such contracts enforceable (see, e.g., Brower v. Gateway [1]) and the other follows Klocek v. Gateway, Inc., which found the contracts at hand unenforceable (e.g., Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp. [2]), but did not comment on shrink wrap contracts as a whole. These decisions are split on the question of consent, with the former holding that only objective manifestation of consent is required while the latter require at least the possibility of subjective consent. In particular, the Netscape contract was rejected because it lacked an express indication of consent (no "I agree" button) and because the contract was not presented directly to the user (users were required to click on a link to access the terms). However, the court in this case did make it clear that "Reasonably conspicuous notice of the existence of contract terms and unambiguous manifestation of assent to those terms by consumers are essential if electronic bargaining is to have integrity and credibility." Specht, 356 F.3d 17. ProCD, Inc. ...
Holding The court ruled that the license agreement for the Smart Download software was not binding on the plaintiffs and thus denied to compel arbitration for plaintiffs breach of the license agreement. ...
It may be worth noting that the user in the Zeidenberg case had purchased and opened the packages of multiple copies of the product, and therefore could not easily prove he remained ignorant of the contract/license; whereas in many cases, the so-called shrink-wrap "license" agreement has not been reviewed at the time of purchase (having been hidden inside the box), and therefore is arguably not part of the sale of the copy, and thus not enforceable by either party without further "manifestation of assent" to its terms. In general, a user is not obligated to read, let alone consent to any literature or envelope packaging that may be contained inside a product; otherwise such transactions would unduly burden users who have no notice of the terms and conditions of their possession of the object purchased, or the blind, or those unfamiliar with the language in which such terms are provided, etc. This article is about the visual condition. ...
Further reading - Halbert, Debora. "The Open Source Alternative: Shrink-Wrap, Open Source and Copyright", Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, December 2003. Retrieved on 2007-02-20.
|
Feeds |
Contact