Voltage Tech Case

Satisfactory Essays
Gabe has engaged in an online business transaction with Voltage Tech through their online ordering service. Gabe has been invoiced $350 for the storage of the software at Voltage Tech’s head office and is angered. He later finds out that out of the many detailed terms there was one term that stated” A storage fee of $50 per day would be payable on collection for every day that Voltage Tech holds the purchase stock after the order is placed”. The primary issue on which Gabe requires advice on is whether he is bound by the term to pay the invoiced fee of $350 issued by Voltage Tech. Although the case in question above is primarily an e-commerce issue, traditional contract rules and laws still apply; Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; 219 CLR 165; 79 ALJR 129; 211 ALR 342 , L'Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394, Stipulating where there is a written contract which is signed, a party is bound by all the terms in the contract irrespective of whether they were aware of the terms it contained. The exception being If a clause is particularly onerous or unusual then…show more content…
The usual rules of offer, acceptance consideration and intention to create legal intentions apply. When Gabe placed his order online, he was shown a “browsewrap” contract where the general terms of contract law apply, stipulating that when Gabe clicked accept to the terms and conditions, he was bound to every one of those terms in the hyperlink whether or not he read or understood it; L'Estrange v Graucob (1934). However, we can argue that the term implementing the penalty was indeed onerous and unusual in the nature that the fee set out by Voltage Tech was well above the average fee of $10 per day, which was charged by other companies. For such a clause to be valid as part of the contract, as stipulated in Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto [1989] “more steps are required to bring it to the notice of a reasonable
Get Access