RE: "Double" Licenses--end-user licenses & consideration

[Terry Cullen <tcullen@seattleu.edu>]

David,

Yes, so true.  Merely a peppercorn WILL suffice.  So, to paraphrase the
expression, "Show me the Peppercorn."  :-)  (While a "lack of
consideration" argument may be a weak one, you have still not pointed me
to any case in which an end-user click-on or shrinkwrap has been upheld
without it.)

Everyone, although the cases Mr. Mirchin cited involving consumers were
all UCC Article 2 (Sale of Goods) cases, I am still interested in
examining any cases upholding click-on/shrinkwraps outside the
commercial/UCC context (i.e., where there was no purchase by the one
against whom the license is enforced).  Thanks in advance.  Sorry if I've
bored you.

Terry Cullen, Esq.
Electronic Services Librarian
Seattle University School of Law Library
950 Broadway Plaza, Tacoma, WA  98402-4470
Email:  tcullen@seattleu.edu
Phone:  253-591-7092  FAX:  253-591-6313

On Tuesday, February 02, 1999 12:31 PM, David_Mirchin@silverplatter.com 
[SMTP:David_Mirchin@silverplatter.com] wrote:
> Terry,
>
> I don't want to bore readers, so this will be my last comment on this
> thread.
>
> A maxim going back to first year contract law is that "a peppercorn" is
> sufficient consideration for an agreement.  It is *extremely* rare for a
> contract to be invalidated for lack of consideration.  Courts try to find
> consideration in every agreement, because "lack of consideration" or
> "insufficient consideration" smack of hyper-technical arguments which can
> undermine the agreement between two parties.
>
> In my opinion (and this is only an opinion), "lack of consideration" is a
> weak basis to argue that end-user click-on agreements are invalid
>
> David Mirchin
> VP & General Counsel
> SilverPlatter Information, Inc.