There are sets of rules, which the BC Corp follows to make sure that its employees are using the office computers for business purpose. As soon as the employees login the computer network, terms and conditions blog hit the page, and employees are asked to agree with BC Corp's computer usage policy. This policy states that employees accepting the terms and conditions certify that use of the computer is only for business purpose and company can monitor the usage for any reason.
Valid contract: in general, it is a written agreement between the parties involved. The contract is valid, only if all the elements of the contract are reasonable, and the parties agree to bind with the written terms and conditions. In order to form a valid contract the elements to be inculcated in the contract are as follows:
• Offer and acceptance of the contract should take place among the parties.
• The parties should intent to create a legal relationship in order make the contract valid in terms of law.
• Lawful consideration should be accepted by all the parties to recompense.
• All the parties should be capable of agreeing to accept the terms and conditions of the contract.
In organizations, once the employee has logged in the computer, he or she has accepted the terms and conditions of the organization, and is legally bound. Here, the statement "you are attempting to access BC Corp network" states the terms and conditions of the company. So, accepting it by clicking the option is a contract between the company and an employee. So, breach of contract at any point of time by the employee may force the organization to take strict action, as the employee is liable.
If I click on 'I agree' box, odds are that its term are binding on me, even if the box contains dozens or even hundreds of lines of dense text. This is known as clickwrap agreement. Clickwraps often includes arbitration clauses. They every now and then limit the liability of the seller so that in case anything goes wrong they can handle the situation in their favor. Many courts have reviewed these issues and have ruled that clickwrap agreements are binding in nature, even when they are against consumers. The courts have declared that sellers are obliged to sell a product on any terms they like to offer..
However, such contracts are refused by some courts stating that the buyer never understood or agreed to clickwrap agreements, therefore, are against the consumer. I agree with such courts as there is no meeting of minds between the parties. These agreements are so huge that no one even bothers to read the terms of such contracts. There is no contract if there is no meeting of minds between the parties. The law should be changed to limit the enforceability of clickwraps.
Decision of the case issue is explained below:
The case depends on the auction whether it was with or without a reserve. As per the case, there is no contract and no sale, because the advertisement was silent about the subject matter. So, the auction is reserve. This implies that all the bids are just an offer even after considering the highest bid.
The auctioneer (the town) in this case, has right to reject all of the offers and C has no right to the entire lot. Therefore, it is obvious that the case is related to the concept offer.