Question

1. According to the court, why did Baer lose in Baer v. Chase? If you could go back in time and represent Baer in his dealings with Chase, how would you change things to make sure an enforceable contract was made? Be specific.

2. According to the court, what did Netscape do wrong in failing to make an enforceable clickwrap agreement with Specht in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corporation? Does this ruling mean that no clickwrap agreement can ever create a binding contract? Why or why not? Explain how internet companies (like Apple, Microsoft and Google) structure their contracts, or terms of use agreements, to avoid the "Netscape" problem.

3. Briefly explain the facts of Soldau v. Organon, Inc. Why did the court find in favor of Organon? Explain.

Answer 1

1.

Baer lost the case because he agreed to be paid once the show become success and Chase offered him to pay the services of Baer but he declined agreeing to receive the payment in the future. Since Chase did offer Baer the payment hence, the court decided in favour of Chase.    

            There should have been a written agreement between Chase and Baer outlining that the true value of Baer’s service will be paid once the show successes. This would have tilted the judgment in favour of Baer.

2.

Netscape should have outlined the licensing terms and conditions explicitly for the internet users. Since the internet users are not supposed to be aware of implicit terms and conditions of using license software.

No, the ruling is not meant that no click wrap agreement can ever be created however, in order to create such agreement it is important for the vendor to provide terms and conditions explicitly.

Internet giants have made specific licensing agreement for their products and services and have made sure that only the eligible internet uses have access to their products and services. The terms and conditions on the products and services have been provided clearly.

3.

Organon Inc. discharged one of its employees John Soldau and offered him to pay double than the normal severance pay with the condition that John Soldau must discharge all claims against Organon Inc. for the release. Soldau received the increase severance pay and deposited the release letter in the mailbox. However, after enchasing the excess compensation he retrieved the release letter which he posed. After that Soldau brought an action against Organon alleging violation of Federal age discrimination.   

Court ordered in favour of Organon as it was clear from the facts that Soldau agreed to the excess compensation in exchange of severance of employee-employer relationship thus, after receiving the excess compensation Soldau had no right to bring an action against Organon.