LAW 531 ABAC State Court & Its Jurisdiction for A Case Questions

Read the Case 14-3 on page 346 Paul Ehlen v. John M. and LynnDee Melvin answer the following questions in
a narrative APA Writing Style. Your response should be no more than three pages doubled-space.
1. What are the facts of the case?
2. What court has jurisdiction in this case and why?
3. What is the key issue in this case?
4. What was the decision in the case?
5. Answer any questions in the case including: Critical Thinking and Ethical Decision Making questions.
CASE OPENER WRAP-UP
The Problematic Promotion
Much to the plaintiff’s dismay, the court in the Pepsi case found that the commercial could not be regarded as
sufficiently definite to be an offer, because it specifically reserved the details of the offer to a separate writing, the
catalog. Also, the commercial itself made no mention of the steps a potential offeree would be required to take
to accept the alleged offer of a Harrier jet. As in most cases where a consumer attempts to place an order for an
advertised item, the court regarded the plaintiff’s purported acceptance as an offer. And it was an offer that Pepsi
obviously rejected. And while the court did not specifically mention this factor, common sense should have
indicated to the plaintiff and his family that Pepsi did not really intend to give a Harrier jet as one of the
promotional prizes.
E-COMMERCE AND THE LAW
E-SIGNATURES
In 2000, Congress passed the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), which
provides that no contract, record, or signature can be denied legal effect “solely because an electronic
signature… was used in its formation.”*, thereby giving electronic signatures the same effect as those made with a
pen on paper, and making electronic documents as valid as paper documents.
The term e-signature has been broadly defined, and is defined under the E-Sign Act as “an electronic sound,
signal or process.” For an electronic signature to be valid, the parties must have agreed to use the electronic
signature. The system used to capture the transaction must keep an associated record that reflects the process
by which the signature was created, or generate a textual or graphic statement (which is added to the signed
record) proving that it was executed with an electronic signature.
While e-signatures are valid for most commercial contracts, there are still some documents where e-signatures
are not valid, including wills, trusts, powers of attorney, court papers, evictions, foreclosures, divorce decrees, and
prenuptial agreements.
To further strengthen the use of electronic signatures, 47 states have adopted the Uniform Electronic
Transactions Act (UETA), a uniform act proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws, which provides that “a record or electronic signature may not be denied legal effect or enforceability solely
because it is in electronic form.”**
Of course, the authenticity of electronic signatures may be challenged in court, just as the authenticity of
signatures on paper may be challenged. And just as in cases involving paper signatures, the court will look for
evidence that the person who is alleged to have signed the document did indeed do so. For example, in a 2012
case the court upheld the authenticity of an e-signature based on evidence the e-signature technology
company had authenticating safeguards, including e-mail addresses and e-mail transmission of notifications to all
the parties.
Source: Chandralekha Mukerji, “Surfing Dangers,” Money Today, http://www.businesstoday.in/moneytoday/money-today-basics/how-to-shop-online-safely-
makepayments-safeguard-identity/story/194372.html
* 15 U.S.C. SS 7001-31 (2000), 15 U.S.C. $ 7001(a)(2).
** Unif. Elec. Transactions Act, (2009), UETA, S 7(a).
*** Zulkiewski v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 299025 (Mich. Ct. App. June 12, 2012).
conditional acceptance is itself a counter offer and rejects the original offer.” We conclude the evidence supports
the court’s finding that the parties did not agree to the essential terms of the agreement and the Melvins’
modifications to the agreement constituted a counteroffer.
Ehlen contends the Melvins accepted the agreement and it is a binding contract because the agreement stated,
“THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS.” However, the Melvins made
material changes and added new terms to the agreement and the parties did not sign the same agreement. The
parties must agree on the same thing in the same sense, and the use of the words that a document is “a legally
binding contract” does not mean that a contract exists.
Ehlen also argues he accepted any counteroffer the Melvins made. The district court found Ehlen never accepted
the Melvins’ counteroffer, and the evidence supports the court’s finding. It is a general rule of law that silence and
inaction, or mere silence or failure to reject an offer when it is made, do not constitute an acceptance of the offer.
…Ehlen did not sign the modified agreement or initial the changes. There was no evidence he complied with the
terms of the agreement. There also was evidence the deal was off because Ehlen was concerned about terms of
his offer that were modified by the Melvins. The evidence supports the court’s finding that Ehlen did not accept
the Melvins’ counteroffer.
Affirmed, in favor of Defendant
Page 347
CRITICAL THINKING
Can you change the facts of the case in a way that might have led the court to a different decision?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING
What values are furthered by this decision? What values are sacrificed by this decision?
BUT WHAT IF …
WHAT IF THE FACTS OF THE CASE OPENER WERE DIFFERENT?
What if Leonard had sent in a certain number of Pepsi points to receive a corresponding prize but at the last minute
e-mailed the company to reject the prize because he wanted to save his points for a bigger prize. If the company
receives his mailed points before his e-mailed rejection, is his rejection valid?