About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/relwcc0020 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations CONSUMER CONTRACTS § 2. Adoption of Standard Contract Terms D.Ariz.2024. Com. (2) quot. in sup., quot. in case cit. in sup. (citing § 2 of T.D., No. 2, 2022, which is now § 2 of the Official Text). Customer filed a class action against credit union, alleging that it violated federal regulations by failing to clearly disclose its overdraft practices. This court denied credit union's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to an arbitration provision that it added to its standard terms years after customer opened her account, holding that customer was not bound by the provision, because credit union's notice of the modification failed to inform customer that she had the right to opt out of the change. The court pointed out that the notice itself was otherwise reasonable under Restatement of Consumer Contracts § 2, because it was delivered at the top of customers' monthly bank statements in a brightly colored banner that informed customers that credit union had changed how legal disputes related to the accounts would be handled and provided customers with a website link that led customers directly to the updated terms. Cornell v. Desert Financial Credit Union, 684 F.Supp.3d 958, 967-970. Mass.2024. Cit. in sup. and cit. in case cit. in ftn., com. (5), illus. 8, and Rptr.'s Notes quot. in ftn. (citing § 2 and quoting com. (5), illus. 8, and Rptr.'s Notes of T.D. No. 2, 2022, which are now § 2 of the Official Text). User of a ride-sharing application sued operator of the application and driver of a vehicle in which user was a passenger, seeking to recover damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident that occurred during a ride user ordered through the application. The trial court denied operator's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the application's terms, finding that user did not have reasonable notice of the terms and had not manifested assent to them. This court reversed and remanded, holding that user manifested assent to the application's terms such that its terms were enforceable. The court pointed out that, although it had concluded that a contract was formed between the parties, user still had the opportunity to present defenses challenging the contract's enforceability, because user's remedies were analytically separate from the issue of contract formation under Restatement of the Law of Consumer Contracts § 2. Good v. Uber Technologies, Inc., 234 N.E.3d 262, 282, 285, 289. § 3. Adoption of a Modification of Standard Contract Terms COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.