Rich Hill and Enza Hill, on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc., and David Prais Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
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 held that consumers who order a computer by phone and keep it beyond the 30-day return period are bound by an arbitration clause included in the terms inside the box, even if they never read them.
Legal Significance: This case established the enforceability of “terms-in-the-box” or “rolling contracts” in consumer transactions. It affirmed that a vendor may structure an offer so that acceptance occurs when the buyer retains the product after having an opportunity to review the terms and return it.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Rich and Enza Hill (Plaintiffs) purchased a Gateway 2000 computer system by placing an order over the telephone. Gateway (Defendant) shipped the computer, which arrived in a box containing the computer itself and a document listing the terms and conditions of the sale. These terms included a mandatory arbitration clause and stipulated that the terms would govern the transaction unless the customer returned the computer within 30 days. The Hills kept the computer for longer than 30 days. Subsequently, they became dissatisfied with the computer’s components and performance and filed a class-action lawsuit against Gateway in federal court, alleging mail and wire fraud under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Gateway moved to dismiss the suit and compel arbitration pursuant to the clause included in the shipping box. The district court denied the motion, finding that the record was insufficient to support the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. Gateway appealed.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Are terms included inside a product’s packaging, which state they are accepted if the product is not returned within 30 days, binding on a consumer who ordered the product over the phone?
Yes. The terms included in the computer box were part of an 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
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
Are terms included inside a product’s packaging, which state they are accepted if the product is not returned within 30 days, binding on a consumer who ordered the product over the phone?
Conclusion
This decision solidified the validity of "terms-in-the-box" contracts, confirming that a consumer's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
Legal Rule
A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct 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
Legal Analysis
The Seventh Circuit, extending its reasoning from *ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg*, held 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, se
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Terms included inside a product’s box are enforceable if the buyer