. Netscape offered its SmartDownload software free of charge on its website. Visitors who wished to obtain SmartDownload from Netscape's website arrived at a page pertaining to the download of the software. On this page, there appeared a tinted box labeled “Download.” By clicking on the box, a visitor initiated the download. The sole reference on this page to the License Agreement appeared in text that was visible only if a visitor scrolled down through the page to the next screen. If a visitor did so, he or she would see the following invitation to review the License Agreement: “Please review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownload software license agreement before downloading and using the software.” Visitors were not required affirmatively to indicate their assent to the License Agreement by clicking on it, or even to view the License Agreement, before proceeding with a download of the software. But if a visitor chose to click on the underlined text in the invitation, a hypertext link would take the visitor to a web page entitled “License & Support Agreements.” The first paragraph on this page read in pertinent part: “The use of each Netscape software product is governed by a license agreement. You must read and agree to the license agreement terms BEFORE acquiring a product. Please click on the appropriate link below to review the current license agreement for the product of interest to you before acquisition. For products available for download, you must read and agree to the license agreement terms BEFORE you install the software. If you do not agree to the license terms, do not download, install or use the software.…” A further click would be required before the visitor was brought to another web page containing the full text of the License Agreement. Among the terms of the License Agreement was a term requiring that virtually all disputes be submitted to arbitration in Santa Clara County, California, with the losing party paying all costs of arbitration. Several people who downloaded SmartDownload filed suit against Netscape because of a privacy issue with the software. Netscape moved to compel arbitration, claiming that the arbitration clause in the License Agreement was valid and enforceable. Was Netscape correct?1. In the summer of 2002, after several South Louisiana women had been murdered, the Multi-Agency Homicide Task Force was established to investigate these murders, believed to have been committed by an individual referred to as the “South Louisiana Serial Killer.” In April 2003, the Baton Rouge Crime Stoppers (BRCS) began publicizing a reward offer in newspapers, television stations, and billboards around the Baton Rouge area regarding the South Louisiana Serial Killer. The offer read, in part:A $100,000 reward will be given for information leading to the arrest and indictment of the South Louisiana Serial Killer. Call today and help make Baton Rouge a safer place for you and your family. All calls remain anonymous. 334-STOP or 1-877-723-7867. Reward expires August 1, 2003.Page 379A short time later, Lafayette Crime Stoppers (LCS) also publicized a reward offer. It stated in part:In order to qualify for the reward, the tipster must provide information which leads to the arrest, DNA match, and the formal filing of charges against a suspect through grand jury indictment.… In addition, the qualifying tip must be received prior to midnight, August 1, 2003.… Tips can be submitted 24 hours a day at 232-TIPS or toll free at 1-800-TIPS.On July 9, 2002, Alexander was attacked in her home in St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Alexander's son arrived home during the attack and chased the attacker from the property. Alexander reported the attack to local police and later, she and her son described the attacker to the Lafayette Sheriff's Department. Her report led investigators to suspect that her attacker could be the South Louisiana Serial Killer. In May 2003, Alexander was interviewed by an FBI agent assisting the task force. Based on the interview, a composite sketch was drawn and released to the public. On May 25, 2003, a photo lineup was prepared and presented to Alexander, and she identified her attacker. On or about August 14, 2003, Alexander contacted LCS and sought to collect the advertised award. However, LCS informed her she was ineligible to receive the award because she did not contact LCS via the tipster hotline and did not conform to the conditions of the offer. Alexander and her son filed suit against LCS and BRCS. Assuming that the information they provided led to the arrest and prosecution of the serial killer, did they accept the offers for the rewards?
đang được dịch, vui lòng đợi..