28:
112:
charges; (2) a class action waiver; (3) an arbitration clause; and (4) a choice-of-law provision pointing to New York law. Talk
America posted the revised contract on its website but, according to Douglas, it never notified him that the contract had changed. Unaware of the new terms, Douglas continued using Talk America's services for four years.
186:
150:
The 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiff's petition for writ of mandamus. On review, the court determined that Plaintiff was not bound by the terms of the revised contract. The court reasoned that the new contract terms constituted an offer and were not binding unless properly accepted.
111:
Joe
Douglas contracted for long-distance telephone service with America Online. Talk America subsequently acquired this business from AOL and continued to provide telephone service to AOL's former customers. Talk America then added four provisions to the service contract: (1) additional service
103:, 495 F.3d 1062 (2007), is a U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case that examines whether a service provider may change the terms of its service contract by merely posting a revised contract on its website, without informing the other party of the changes.
447:
119:, breach of contract and violations of various California consumer protection statutes. Talk America moved to compel arbitration based on the modified contract and the district court granted the motion. Because the
961:
140:
530:
440:
284:
331:
143:, granted defendant's motion to compel arbitration. The court also found that the additional clauses in the revised contract were enforceable as a matter of law. Douglas petitioned for
38:
364:
345:
454:
842:
634:
277:
946:
537:
790:
115:
After becoming aware of the additional charges, Douglas filed a class action lawsuit in district court, charging Talk
America with violations of the
956:
951:
815:
270:
245:
217:
67:
936:
745:
419:
412:
324:
159:
The ruling examines whether a service provider may change the terms of its service contract by merely posting a revised contract on its website.
196:
27:
627:
461:
426:
523:
486:
338:
561:
641:
502:
468:
589:
151:
The
Plaintiff did not accept the offer because "an offeree cannot assent to an offer unless he knows of its existence."
679:
173:
890:
620:
383:
293:
116:
433:
966:
835:
356:
317:
672:
575:
548:
475:
120:
774:
752:
583:
394:
308:
124:
881:
708:
571:
254:
192:
941:
808:
783:
693:
509:
910:
901:
826:
704:
90:
849:
718:
663:
613:
600:
168:
144:
128:
856:
516:
495:
86:
871:
736:
725:
556:
930:
604:
82:
374:
402:
262:
398:
221:
127:
of a district court order compelling arbitration, Douglas petitioned for a
448:
Arizona
Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.
531:
Atlantic Marine
Construction Co. v. United States District Court
441:
In re Zappos.com, Inc., Customer Data
Security Breach Litigation
266:
962:
United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit cases
195:
from judicial opinions or other documents created by the
332:
Kansas City
Wholesale Grocery Co. v. Weber Packing Corp.
39:
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
900:
880:
870:
825:
800:
773:
766:
735:
703:
662:
655:
599:
570:
547:
485:
393:
373:
355:
307:
300:
241:, 495 F. 3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) is available from:
78:
73:
62:
54:
44:
34:
20:
687:Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America
365:Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States
346:Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc
843:Helene Curtis Industries, Inc. v. United States
455:Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology
49:Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America
635:G. L. Christian and Associates v. United States
100:Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America
278:
8:
538:Salsbury v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
877:
791:Lenawee County Board of Health v. Messerly
770:
659:
304:
285:
271:
263:
26:
17:
816:SCO Group, Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
325:Gottlieb v. Tropicana Hotel & Casino
746:Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.
420:Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, Inc.
204:
197:federal judiciary of the United States
628:Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors, Inc.
462:Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc.
7:
123:, 9 U.S.C. § 16, does not authorize
947:United States arbitration case law
427:Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.
14:
562:Jacob & Youngs, Inc. v. Kent
524:King v. Trustees of Boston Univ.
339:Ever-Tite Roofing Corp. v. Green
184:
957:United States contract case law
952:United States computer case law
937:2007 in United States case law
642:Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton
503:Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon
469:Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc.
141:Central District of California
1:
590:MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
680:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
239:Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court
213:Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court
174:Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc.
21:Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court
983:
891:Drennan v. Star Paving Co.
711:(unwritten & informal)
621:Seixas and Seixas v. Woods
384:Ellefson v. Megadeth, Inc.
294:United States contract law
191:This article incorporates
117:Federal Communications Act
656:Defense against formation
434:ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg
25:
836:United States v. Spearin
357:Implied-in-fact contract
318:Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.
673:Morrison v. Amway Corp.
549:Substantial performance
476:Feldman v. Google, Inc.
121:Federal Arbitration Act
218:495 F. 3d 1062
193:public domain material
753:Buchwald v. Paramount
584:De Cicco v. Schweizer
139:The trial court, the
125:interlocutory appeals
309:Offer and acceptance
91:Consuelo M. Callahan
882:Promissory estoppel
767:Cancelling Contract
809:Stoddard v. Martin
784:Sherwood v. Walker
694:McMichael v. Price
510:Kirksey v. Kirksey
413:Specht v. Netscape
301:Contract formation
924:
923:
920:
919:
911:Britton v. Turner
902:Unjust enrichment
866:
865:
827:Misrepresentation
762:
761:
705:Statute of frauds
651:
650:
96:
95:
974:
878:
850:Laidlaw v. Organ
771:
719:Buffaloe v. Hart
707:(written) &
664:Illusory promise
660:
614:Hawkins v. McGee
601:Implied warranty
305:
287:
280:
273:
264:
259:
253:
250:
244:
225:
215:
209:
188:
187:
169:Illusory promise
145:writ of mandamus
129:writ of mandamus
74:Court membership
30:
18:
982:
981:
977:
976:
975:
973:
972:
971:
967:Blockbuster LLC
927:
926:
925:
916:
896:
862:
857:Smith v. Bolles
821:
796:
758:
731:
699:
647:
595:
566:
543:
517:Angel v. Murray
496:Hamer v. Sidway
481:
389:
369:
351:
296:
291:
257:
251:
248:
242:
234:
229:
228:
211:
210:
206:
185:
182:
165:
157:
137:
109:
87:Ronald M. Gould
12:
11:
5:
980:
978:
970:
969:
964:
959:
954:
949:
944:
939:
929:
928:
922:
921:
918:
917:
915:
914:
906:
904:
898:
897:
895:
894:
886:
884:
875:
872:Quasi-contract
868:
867:
864:
863:
861:
860:
853:
846:
839:
831:
829:
823:
822:
820:
819:
812:
804:
802:
798:
797:
795:
794:
787:
779:
777:
768:
764:
763:
760:
759:
757:
756:
749:
741:
739:
737:Unconscionable
733:
732:
730:
729:
726:Foman v. Davis
722:
714:
712:
709:Parol evidence
701:
700:
698:
697:
690:
683:
676:
668:
666:
657:
653:
652:
649:
648:
646:
645:
638:
631:
624:
617:
609:
607:
597:
596:
594:
593:
586:
580:
578:
568:
567:
565:
564:
559:
557:Lucy v. Zehmer
553:
551:
545:
544:
542:
541:
534:
527:
520:
513:
506:
499:
491:
489:
483:
482:
480:
479:
472:
465:
458:
451:
444:
437:
430:
423:
416:
408:
406:
391:
390:
388:
387:
379:
377:
371:
370:
368:
367:
361:
359:
353:
352:
350:
349:
342:
335:
328:
321:
313:
311:
302:
298:
297:
292:
290:
289:
282:
275:
267:
261:
260:
255:Google Scholar
233:
232:External links
230:
227:
226:
203:
202:
181:
178:
177:
176:
171:
164:
161:
156:
153:
136:
133:
108:
105:
94:
93:
80:
79:Judges sitting
76:
75:
71:
70:
64:
60:
59:
56:
52:
51:
46:
45:Full case name
42:
41:
36:
32:
31:
23:
22:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
979:
968:
965:
963:
960:
958:
955:
953:
950:
948:
945:
943:
940:
938:
935:
934:
932:
913:
912:
908:
907:
905:
903:
899:
893:
892:
888:
887:
885:
883:
879:
876:
873:
869:
859:
858:
854:
852:
851:
847:
845:
844:
840:
838:
837:
833:
832:
830:
828:
824:
818:
817:
813:
811:
810:
806:
805:
803:
799:
793:
792:
788:
786:
785:
781:
780:
778:
776:
772:
769:
765:
755:
754:
750:
748:
747:
743:
742:
740:
738:
734:
728:
727:
723:
721:
720:
716:
715:
713:
710:
706:
702:
696:
695:
691:
689:
688:
684:
682:
681:
677:
675:
674:
670:
669:
667:
665:
661:
658:
654:
644:
643:
639:
637:
636:
632:
630:
629:
625:
623:
622:
618:
616:
615:
611:
610:
608:
606:
605:caveat emptor
602:
598:
592:
591:
587:
585:
582:
581:
579:
577:
573:
569:
563:
560:
558:
555:
554:
552:
550:
546:
540:
539:
535:
533:
532:
528:
526:
525:
521:
519:
518:
514:
512:
511:
507:
505:
504:
500:
498:
497:
493:
492:
490:
488:
487:Consideration
484:
478:
477:
473:
471:
470:
466:
464:
463:
459:
457:
456:
452:
450:
449:
445:
443:
442:
438:
436:
435:
431:
429:
428:
424:
422:
421:
417:
415:
414:
410:
409:
407:
404:
400:
396:
392:
386:
385:
381:
380:
378:
376:
372:
366:
363:
362:
360:
358:
354:
348:
347:
343:
341:
340:
336:
334:
333:
329:
327:
326:
322:
320:
319:
315:
314:
312:
310:
306:
303:
299:
295:
288:
283:
281:
276:
274:
269:
268:
265:
256:
247:
246:CourtListener
240:
236:
235:
231:
223:
219:
214:
208:
205:
201:
200:
198:
194:
179:
175:
172:
170:
167:
166:
162:
160:
154:
152:
148:
146:
142:
134:
132:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
106:
104:
102:
101:
92:
88:
84:
83:Alex Kozinski
81:
77:
72:
69:
65:
61:
57:
53:
50:
47:
43:
40:
37:
33:
29:
24:
19:
16:
909:
889:
855:
848:
841:
834:
814:
807:
789:
782:
751:
744:
724:
717:
692:
686:
685:
678:
671:
640:
633:
626:
619:
612:
588:
536:
529:
522:
515:
508:
501:
494:
474:
467:
460:
453:
446:
439:
432:
425:
418:
411:
382:
375:Mailbox rule
344:
337:
330:
323:
316:
238:
212:
207:
190:
183:
158:
155:Significance
149:
138:
114:
110:
99:
98:
97:
58:June 7, 2007
48:
15:
576:3rd parties
224: 2007).
931:Categories
874:obligation
801:Illegality
405:agreements
403:Browsewrap
395:Shrinkwrap
66:495 F. 3d
942:Licensing
399:Clickwrap
222:C.D. Cal.
237:Text of
163:See also
135:Judgment
63:Citation
775:Mistake
572:Privity
55:Decided
574:&
258:
252:
249:
243:
220: (
216:,
189:
180:Notes
107:Facts
35:Court
68:1062
933::
603:,
401:,
397:,
147:.
131:.
89:,
85:,
286:e
279:t
272:v
199:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
