In Re Zappos

question 43

Multiple Choice

In Re Zappos.com Inc. ,v.Customer Data Security Breach Litigation,the case in the text in which customers of Zappos claimed that they were not bound to an arbitration agreement contained in a contract with Zappos,what was the result of the case?

• A)The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that the contract was properly entered into and was fully enforceable.
• B)The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that even though some provisions of the contract were unenforceable,because of the federal policy favoring arbitration agreements,the arbitration clause itself was enforceable.
• C)The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
• D)The court ruled for the plaintiffs for the following two reasons: 1)there was no contract because plaintiffs did not assent to it,and 2)even if a contract existed,the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
• E)The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that no contract existed based on the plaintiffs' lack of assent.

Identify tools that aid in the efficiency of writing technical documents.

Understand the limitations of current composition tools.

Recognize effective techniques for idea generation in writing.

Understand how to craft an effective statement of purpose for technical documents.

---

Definitions:

Petty Offenses

Minor legal violations that typically result in a small fine or penalty and do not entail significant legal consequences.

Tort Offenses

Legal wrongdoings that arise from breach of duty primarily fixed by law, where the duty is towards individuals rather than contractual obligations.

Strict Liability

A legal doctrine that makes an individual or entity responsible for damages or harm caused by their actions, regardless of fault or negligence.

Reasonable Doubt

A standard of proof in criminal law that requires the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt to such a degree that a reasonable person would have no question of the defendant's guilt.