Cummings v. Jorgensen

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying Meyer and Nicosia in a case governed by New York contract law
• remanding to the district court where “the record [was] insufficiently developed on the issue of whether the parties entered into an agreement to arbitrate” because the court could not “determine the matter of arbitrability ‘as a matter of law’”
• explaining the district court “should have required further evidence” so that it could “determine whether [plaintiff] was placed on inquiry notice of the amended . . . [a]greement” including “screenshots of the webpage(s)” on which these terms were purportedly presented
• “It is a basic tenet of contract law that, in order to be binding, a contract requires a ‘meeting of the minds’ and ‘a manifestation of mutual assent.’” (citation omitted)
• “In determining whether an offeree is on inquiry notice of contract terms, New York courts look to whether the term was obvious and whether it was called to the offeree’s attention.”
• noting Second Circuit has “consistently upheld” “clickwrap” agreements

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).