I need a synopsis of proceedings, and although I've dug up alot of great articles (some as long as 26 pages printed), I fear I'm losing sight of the simplicity of the case.
Were the Hills S.O.L. in this case? My thoughts are "yes", and assuming so, I agree with the courts decision in that they failed to read pertinent, enclosed documentation, as well as failing to comply with reurn shipping of computer within the 30 days required.
I feel like I'm trying to compact a novel of info, into 300 words.
Can you please help?
KDR© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com March 22, 2019, 3:42 am ad1c9bdddf
Hill bought a computer from Gateway 2000, inc. The purchase order was made over phone. The full terms of the contract were not read over the phone by Gateway but it included a list of terms in the box that contained the computer. The law is that additional terms included in a box shipped by the seller become a part of the contract between the two parties, even if the buyer is unaware of the additional terms. The acceptance of the additional terms occurs if the buyer does not return the item ...
This posting gives you a step-by-step explanation of Hill v Gateway 2000 . The response also contains the sources used.