HARRIS v. BLOCKBUSTER INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A court found Blockbuster’s arbitration agreement unenforceable because the company reserved the right to change the terms at any time. This unilateral power to modify made its promise to arbitrate illusory, lacking the consideration necessary for a valid contract.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a unilateral right to modify a contract, including its arbitration clause, without a “savings clause” to protect pre-existing disputes, renders the arbitration promise illusory and unenforceable under Texas law, even if the right to modify has not been exercised.
HARRIS v. BLOCKBUSTER INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff sued Blockbuster Inc., alleging it violated the Video Privacy Protection Act by sharing customers’ movie rental histories with Facebook. To use Blockbuster’s online service, customers had to agree to its “Terms and Conditions” by clicking a box. These terms included a mandatory arbitration clause. Critically, the Terms and Conditions also contained a provision stating that Blockbuster reserved the right to modify the terms “at its sole discretion” and “at any time,” with any such modification becoming “effective immediately upon posting” on its website. When sued, Blockbuster moved to compel arbitration based on this clause. The plaintiff countered that the arbitration agreement was unenforceable because Blockbuster’s unilateral right to modify the contract at any time made its promise to arbitrate illusory, which is a question of contract formation.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a party’s reservation of a unilateral right to modify the terms of a contract at any time, without a clause preventing retroactive application of such changes, render an arbitration provision within that contract illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration?
Yes. The arbitration provision is illusory and unenforceable. Blockbuster’s retention of the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a party’s reservation of a unilateral right to modify the terms of a contract at any time, without a clause preventing retroactive application of such changes, render an arbitration provision within that contract illusory and unenforceable for lack of consideration?
Conclusion
This case serves as a key precedent for "clickwrap" and other online Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehend
Legal Rule
Under Texas law, a promise is illusory and cannot serve as consideration Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fu
Legal Analysis
The court determined that the arbitration provision was illusory and thus unenforceable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The court denied Blockbuster’s motion to compel arbitration in a VPPA