Glenn and Sheldon are both right -- in Vault, the contract was viewed
as a contract of adhesion, but that really didn't have to do with the
court's decision, which ws that permitting this type of license was
not permitted given the preemption doctrine.
Under La. law, contracts of adhesion were illegal _except_ shrinkwrap licenses. Both sides conceded that this was such a contract, and would be permitted if the law was not in conflict with US copyright law. The question at issue was whether the La. law was preempted by the US law. If so, the La. law was of no effect; if not, the La. law permitted the license, despite the fact that it was a contract of adhesion.
The court held that it was preempted.
Terry Carroll
<tcarroll[_at_]scuacc.scu.edu>
Received on Sat Mar 12 1994 - 00:10:06 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:11 GMT