Business law

Feldman purchased advertising through Google’s “AdWords” aiming to benefit from the agreement and gain new clients. The contract between Feldman and Google Inc. was online. With the advent of online transactions, this has become more of a norm and online contracts are just as binding as physical ones which are written on paper. Based on the facts of the case, by Feldman assenting to the clickwrap agreement, he made the contract legally binding to both parties so that cannot be a reason for the dismissal of the case.

The elements of common- law contract formation include offer, acceptance, and consideration (The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, 2014). The offer, in this case, is advertising through Google, Inc.’s “AdWords” program. A valid offer should contain the price, the person to whom the offer is made, and the object of the offer. This creates a power of acceptance in the offeree (The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, 2014). In this case, all factors were present except the price of the advertising. This, in essence, invalidates the entire contract since the essential terms were not definite.

Unconscionability is a defense used when the contract contains markedly unfair terms against the party with less bargaining power or sophistication than the party who created the terms and induced the other party to sign it (The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business, 2014). The algorithm used to calculate the advertisement costs is harsh and oppressive to the clients which affirm the substantive unconscionability defense. By all means, the “AdWords” contract unreasonably favors one of the parties i.e. Google, Inc.

References

The Legal and Ethical Environment of Business (2014). Washington, D.C.: The Saylor Foundation