Reference no: EM132289223

1. Blockbuster operates a service called Blockbuster Online, which allows customers to rent movies through the internet. Blockbuster entered into an agreement with Facebook (“the Blockbuster contract”) which caused Blockbuster’s customers’ movie rental choices to be disseminated on the customers’ Facebook accounts through Facebook’s “Beacon” program. In short, when a customer rented a video from Blockbuster Online, the Beacon program would transmit the customer’s choice to Facebook, which would then broadcast the choice to the customer’s Facebook friends.Plaintiff claims that this arrangement violated the Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2710, which prohibits a videotape service provider from disclosing personally identifiable information about a customer unless given informed, written consent at the time the disclosure is sought. . .On August 30, 2008, before the case was transferred to this Court, the Defendant moved to enforce the arbitration provision. The Plaintiffs argued that the arbitration provision is unenforceable, principally for two reasons: (1) it is illusory; and (2) it is unconscionable. Because the Court concludes that the arbitration provision is illusory, the Court does not reach the unconscionability issue.

In this case, the contract was deemed “illusory,” which means that it was indefinite and lacked mutuality, as Blockbuster’s customers were required to hold up the terms and Blockbuster was not. In addition, the contract gave Blockbuster the right to make changes to the document as it wished and without notifying or obtaining consent from the customers who agreed to it. How did this case create a situation where only one side was considered? How would this case be considered “illusory”? Should a contract such as this be enforced, or should it be voided? Do you agree with the court decision against Blockbuster?

2. Many countries have adopted the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) as their common legal code governing sales contracts. The United States, however, continues to use the Uniform Commercial Code. This means that different sets of rules apply in different sales circumstances. When the parties entering into the sales contract are both from the United States, the UCC applies. However, if one party is international, the CISG applies. Although many of the topics covered in CISG and the UCC are the same, there are some differences. For example, the CISG does not require sales contracts to be in writing, and the CISG’s provisions follow the mirror image rule.

a) What factors account for differences between the CISG and the UCC?

b) What are the implications of these differences between the CISG and the UCC?

c) Do you think the United States should adopt the CISG? Why? Why not?

3. Is FMLA effective? Why or why not? What are the implications of FMLA for firms? Do you think the United States should implement paid family and medical leave legislation? What should such legislation look like?