Business Law 11th Edition by Kenneth Clarkson,Roger LeRoy Miller,Gaylord Jentz,Frank Cross

تمرين 7

Trell v. American Association of the Advancement of Science
United States District Court, Western District of New York, 2007. __ F.Supp.2d __.
• Background and Facts The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) maintains Science NOW, a daily Internet news service, and publishes Science, a scholarly journal. An ad on the Science NOW Web site asks for "news tips" and states that each tip will be investigated for its suitability as an item for Science NOW or an article for Science. In response to the ad, Erik Trell, a professor and physician, submitted a manuscript in which he claimed to have solved a famous mathematical problem, popularly known as Beal's Conjecture. AAAS decided that Trell's manuscript contained neither news nor a solution to Beal's Conjecture and declined to publish it. Trell filed a suit in a federal district court against AAAS and others, alleging, among other things, breach of contract. Trell asserted, in part, that the Science NOW ad was an offer, which he accepted with his submission of a manuscript. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss this claim.
JOHN T. ELFVIN, * * * D.J. [District Judge]
* * * *
* * * Resolution of this issue requires consideration of principles of contract law that are not limited to the law of any one state * * * [and] implicate questions of contract law deeply ingrained in the common law of England and the States of the Union. It is upon these principles that the Court will examine this issue.
With respect to the formation of a contract, the Court finds that the relevant facts are contained in paragraphs 26 through 28 of [Trell's] Amended Complaint. In those paragraphs, plaintiff alleges that "AAAS provides a daily news service, Science NOW, as one of its Web products," that "[i]n one of its Internet [advertisements] for [news] tips," Science NOW indicated that "its news team would investigate any tip submitted that was suitable for an item in Science NOW, and that the same might even lead to a story in the print version of defendant AAAS's Science magazine" and that in response to this advertisement, "[p]laintiff submitted his manuscript to defendant Science NOW, entitled 'Reproving Fermat's Last Theorem: also confirming Beal's and related conjectures.'"
Having reviewed the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that, upon the facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint, this claim must be dismissed because no contract was formed. Quite simply, the Court finds that the advertisement for "news tips" on the Science NOW Web site cannot be construed as an offer * * *. Statements that urge members of the general public to take some action in response thereto, as is clearly depicted in the Amended Complaint herein, are commonly characterized as advertisements. Advertisements are not offers-they invite offers. Likewise, responses to advertisements are not acceptances-they are offers. At best, it was Trell's submission of the manuscript that was the offer, which Trell clearly admits defendants declined to accept. This is the controlling law. The Court finds no distinction requiring a different analysis or result merely because the advertisement was soliciting ideas (i.e., "news tips") rather than goods, or because it was communicated over the Internet as opposed to through television, radio or newspaper advertisement. [Emphasis added.]
There is a very narrow and limited exception to this rule, but it is rarely applied and only in exceptional circumstances where the advertisement clearly communicates an offer that is definite, explicit and leaves nothing open for negotiation. There is nothing alleged in the Amended Complaint which could reasonably be construed to apply this exception.
• Decision and Remedy The court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. Science NOW's ad for "news tips" was not an offer, but an invitation for offers.
• The Ethical Dimension Besides breach of contract, Trell charged the defendants with fraud, misappropriation of property, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion, and conspiracy with intent to defraud. What might have been Trell's motivation for all of these charges Is this a reasonable basis for a lawsuit Discuss.
• The E-Commerce Dimension Should the court have made an exception to the rule applied in this case because the ad was posted on the Internet Why or why not