| 词条 | Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. |
| 释义 |
| name = Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. | court = United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas | image = Seal of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.gif | imagesize = 150 | caption = | full name = Cathryn Elaine Harris, et al. v. Blockbuster, Inc. | date decided = April 15, 2009 | citations = 622 F. Supp. 2d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090416981 396] | docket = [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4390285/harris-v-blockbuster-inc/ 3:09-cv-00217] | transcripts = | judge = Barbara M. Lynn | prosecutor = | counsel for plaintiff= | plaintiff = | defendant = | prior actions = | subsequent actions = | holding = | keywords = }} Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009),[1] established precedent in the district that when a contract has a clause that authorizes one party to make changes to the "contract" without notification, that it is illusory and hence the entire "contract" is void. JudgmentOn April 15, 2009, the District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that Blockbuster Online's Terms and Conditions were unenforceable because they gave Blockbuster too much discretion in modifying the terms of the agreement. Following the reasoning in a Fifth Circuit case, Morrison v. Amway Corp.,[2] and consistent with a Ninth Circuit case, Douglas v. U.S. District Court ex rel Talk America[3] the court found that Blockbuster's arbitration provision was illusory, because there was nothing in the Terms and Conditions that would prevent Blockbuster from "unilaterally changing any part of the contract." SignificanceSome websites' "terms and conditions" may be deemed an illusory contract and unenforceable if the language can be changed at any time by the company without notifying users and giving them a chance to reject the new changes. See also
Notes1. ^{{cite court |litigants=Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc. |vol=622 |reporter=F. Supp. 2d |opinion=396 |pinpoint= |court=N.D. Tex. |date=2009 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090416981 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}} 2. ^{{cite court |litigants=Morrison v. Amway Corp. |vol=517 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=248 |pinpoint= |court=5th Cir. |date=2008 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008765517f3d2481762 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}} 3. ^{{cite court |litigants=Douglas v. U.S. Dist. Court ex rel Talk America |vol=495 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=1062 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/20071557495f3d106211554 |accessdate=2019-02-11 |quote=}} External links
| case = Harris v. Blockbuster, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 396 (N.D. Tex. 2009) | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2395071/harris-v-blockbuster-inc/ | leagle =https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20090416981{{US-case-law-stub}} 7 : 2009 in United States case law|Licensing|United States arbitration case law|United States computer case law|United States contract case law|United States district court cases|Blockbuster LLC |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。