Connection lost
Server error
DeFontes v. Dell, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
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: Dell included a “shrinkwrap” arbitration agreement with its computers. The court found no contract was formed because Dell failed to clearly communicate to consumers that they could reject the terms by returning the product, thus preventing a valid acceptance of the agreement.
Legal Significance: Adopts the “layered contracting” approach for shrinkwrap agreements, but places the burden on the seller to make the method of acceptance (keeping the product) and rejection (returning it) explicitly and reasonably clear to the consumer for a binding contract to be formed.
DeFontes v. Dell, 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
Plaintiffs purchased computers from Dell. Included in the product packaging was a “Terms and Conditions Agreement” containing a mandatory arbitration clause. The agreement stated that by “accepting delivery” of the computer, the customer agreed to be bound by the terms. However, the version of the agreement sent to the plaintiffs did not explicitly state that the customer could reject the terms by returning the product. Instead, it referenced a separate “Total Satisfaction Return Policy” without clearly linking the return right to the rejection of the contractual terms. Dell moved to compel arbitration, arguing the plaintiffs accepted the terms by keeping the computers. The plaintiffs contended they never agreed to the arbitration provision, as a contract was formed at the time of purchase, making the subsequent terms a mere proposal for modification under UCC § 2-207.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did consumers form a binding contract to arbitrate by keeping a product when the seller’s accompanying terms stated that acceptance of delivery constituted assent, but did not clearly explain that the consumer could reject those terms by returning the product?
No, a binding agreement to arbitrate was not formed. The court affirmed 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 dolor
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did consumers form a binding contract to arbitrate by keeping a product when the seller’s accompanying terms stated that acceptance of delivery constituted assent, but did not clearly explain that the consumer could reject those terms by returning the product?
Conclusion
This case establishes that while shrinkwrap agreements are enforceable under a layered 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
Legal Rule
Under the "layered contracting" theory of formation, a seller may propose that 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 ci
Legal Analysis
The court adopted the majority "layered contracting" approach from *ProCD, Inc. v. 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. Lo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Adopts the majority “layered contracting” view (ProCD/Hill) for shrinkwrap agreements, where
