KLOCEK v. GATEWAY, 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 consumer bought a computer and found an arbitration clause in the box. The court held the clause was not part of the contract because the consumer, as the offeror, never expressly agreed to the seller’s post-sale proposal for additional terms.
Legal Significance: This case is a key rejection of the “rolling contract” theory from Hill v. Gateway. It applies UCC § 2-207 to consumer transactions with post-sale terms, treating such terms as proposals that require the consumer’s express assent to become binding.
KLOCEK v. GATEWAY, 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 William Klocek purchased a computer from defendant Gateway, Inc. Inside the shipping box, Gateway included its Standard Terms and Conditions Agreement. This document contained a clause requiring any disputes to be resolved through binding arbitration. The terms stated that by keeping the computer for more than five days, the customer accepted the terms. Klocek, a consumer, was not a merchant. After experiencing problems with the computer, Klocek filed a lawsuit against Gateway, alleging breach of contract and warranty. Gateway filed a motion to dismiss, seeking to enforce the arbitration clause pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act. Gateway argued that the Standard Terms, including the arbitration clause, became a binding part of the sales contract when Klocek kept the computer beyond the five-day review period. The court noted a factual dispute as to whether the computer was purchased in person or ordered for shipment, but found this did not alter the core contract formation analysis under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under UCC § 2-207, are additional terms, such as an arbitration clause, included with a product after a sales contract is formed, binding on a non-merchant buyer who does not expressly assent to them?
No. The court denied Gateway’s motion to dismiss, holding that the arbitration 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. Dui
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
Under UCC § 2-207, are additional terms, such as an arbitration clause, included with a product after a sales contract is formed, binding on a non-merchant buyer who does not expressly assent to them?
Conclusion
This case provides a significant alternative interpretation to the "rolling contract" theory, 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 ullam
Legal Rule
Under UCC § 2-207, a written confirmation sent after a contract is 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
Legal Analysis
The court rejected the Seventh Circuit's reasoning in *ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg* 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 ei
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A consumer’s purchase order is the offer, and the vendor’s shipment