Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Rich Hill and Enza Hill, on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc., and David Prais Case Brief

Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit1997Docket #786742
105 F.3d 1147

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

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

General Brief
3 min read

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.

Rich Hill and Enza Hill, on Behalf of a Class of Persons Similarly Situated v. Gateway 2000, Inc., and David Prais 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

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

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

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

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
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. Ex

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

The law is a jealous mistress, and requires a long and constant courtship.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+