MacNeil v. Trambert, 2010 WL 2222805 (Ill. App. 2 Dist. June 3, 2010)

Defendant Trambert, a resident of California, listed a Toyota SUV for sale to the highest bidder on eBay in November of 2008. Defendant was later notified that Plaintiff MacNeil, a resident of Illinois, was the winning bidder, and the two made arrangements for payment and delivery. As part of the eBay Terms and Conditions, MacNeil was responsible for pick-up or shipping of the vehicle. In December, Plaintiff’s agent in California inspected the vehicle and accepted title and possession, and delivered Plaintiff’s cashier’s check, which was drawn on an Illinois bank. After personally inspecting the vehicle Plaintiff discovered that there was no satellite radio and no DVD screens in the headdress, as had been indicated in the eBay listing. In February of 2009, Plaintiff filed an Illinois small claims court action for $2,546 and Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court granted defendant’s motion and the appellate court affirmed.

A plaintiff has the burden of establishing a prima facie case for jurisdiction when seeking jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Bolger v. Nautica International, Inc., 269 Ill. App. 3d 947, 949 (2007). Illinois has a long-arm statute that permits jurisdiction over foreign defendants that comports with the due process requirements of the Constitution. To satisfy federal due process, a defendant must have minimum contacts with the forum state such that defending a lawsuit there would not offend “ ‘ “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” ‘ “ Spartan Motors, Inc. v. Lube Power, Inc., 337 Ill. App. 3d 556, 560 (2003), quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 90 L. Ed. 95, 102, 66 S. Ct. 154, 158 (1945), quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 85 L. Ed. 278. 283, 61 S. Ct. 339, 343 (1940). In deciding the question of jurisdiction a court will determine whether there was purposeful availment of the benefits and protections of the forum state.

Plaintiff’s complaint averred that the had only seen Defendant’s ads for the vehicle on eBay and that was insufficient to establish general jurisdiction. Plaintiff argued, however, that the court had personal jurisdiction over Defendant because, after listing the car on eBay, which is accessible worldwide, Defendant should have anticipated being brought to court in Illinois if the winning bidder was a resident of Illinois. The appellate court rejected this argument and cited the case of Foley v. Yacht Management Group, Inc., No. 08 – -C – - 7254 (N.D. Ill. July 9, 2009), which also dealt with a failed eBay sale. In Foley, the Defendant refused to accept payment from the winning bidder and the Plaintiff brought suit. In determining whether the court had jurisdiction, the court ruled that Defendant had no tied to the forum state other than the fact that the winning bidder lived there. The Foley court held the Defendant, as an eBay seller, had no control over where the buyer of its item would live and therefore there was no purposeful availment.

While Plaintiff argued that the various telephone calls and emails that occurred between the parties was enough to establish minimum contacts, the court disagreed. Plaintiff also sought to establish jurisdiction based on precedent involving the use of “interactive websites.” Not only does Defendant not run the eBay site, nothing in the record indicated that Defendant’s listings or personal eBay pages were interactive enough to trigger jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s final argument for jurisdiction, that Defendant committed tortuous conduct in the forum, was similarly rejected by the appellate court; the so-called “Effects Doctrine” applies only to intentional torts, and not to breach of contract.

Ultimately Defendant’s business contacts with Illinois were nothing more than random and attenuated and therefore the court was unable to assert jurisdiction in this case.

Individuals and businesses can be brought to court in states where they live or operate in commerce (personal jurisdiction). Additionally, both can agree to submit to jurisdiction in a forum state as part of a valid contract. What effect then does a website have? Is a page that can be accessed over the internet a “presence” in every state? Or is launching such a site some implicit agreement to litigate a dispute wherever a plaintiff may reside?

A foreign state can exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident for non-forum related activities when the individual or business has engaged in “systematic and continuous” activities in the forum state. This type of jurisdiction is known as general jurisdiction and can be exercised when a company does targeted business in a state, such as by opening a store or sending employees to make sales or perform services. A foreign state can exercise specific jurisdiction, however, when an entity’s activity within the state create sufficient “minimum contacts” with the state. Specific jurisdiction is what is invoked when a state exercises jurisdcition based on a website.

To satisfy the “minimum contacts” requirement, websites are divided into 3 categories:

Commercial Websites – which do a substantial volume of business over the internet, and through which customers in any location can immediately engage in business with the business owner;

Interactive Websites – which merely provide information, will almost never provide sufficient minimum contacts for jurisdiction. Such a website will only provide a basis for jurisdiction if there is an intentional tort such as defamation on the website, and if it is directed at the jurisdiction in question

Passive Websites – which permit the exchange of information between the website owner and visitors, may be subject to jurisdiction, depending on the website’s level of interactivity and commerciality, and the amount of contacts which the website owner has developed with the forum due to the availability of the website within the jurisdiction.

If you’re not sure which category your website falls into it may be time to consult with a local internet and e-commerce attorney.. For a quick and easy answer, the Minnesota District Court poses this question, is your website more of “less sophisticated than a typical teenager’s Facebook page”? If it is less sophisticated then chances are you are not subjecting yourself, or your company, to foreign jurisdiction.

In order to decide if a contract is procedurally unconscionable, courts consider factors such as how the contract was entered into, whether the parties had adequate time to read and understand the contract, and whether important terms in the contract are conspicuous. Under the Uniform Commercial Code of many states, a term in a contract is conspicuous if it is presented in a manner “that a reasonable person against which it is to operate ought to have noticed it.” Courts interpreting this definition have looked to see whether the presentation of contract terms include any means to set it, or its heading, apart from the rest of the content displayed, such as difference in color, size, or font.

Here are some simple steps you can follow to ensure that your contract will be seen by your customers and enforced by the court if a problem does arise:

1. Don’t Hide Your Terms

This step should be fairly obvious but too many website operators choose to bury their terms of service either on unrelated pages that customers are unlikely to visit, or at the very bottom of a page in a small font. No matter what size font you use, if your users have to scroll way down a page to view the terms (and they don\’t have to do the same amount of scrolling to make a purchase) chances are you’re running an unnecessary risk

2. Have Plenty of Links

This step is really a continuation of your efforts NOT to hide the terms of a website. If you have multiple pages required to finalize an order, have a link to the terms on each page, and have each link be visible. This doesn’t mean that your website needs to be plastered with links but one visible link per page should suffice without disrupting the look and feel of your site.

3. Use Blue, Underlined Links

This may sound silly, but courts like consistency and precedent and while you may like the look of a yellow hyperlink for your terms in italic, courts are familiar with standard blue, underlined links. Chances are your customers are familiar with blue links as well so make it as easy as possible for them to recognize the links to your terms by showing them the convention they’re used to.

4. Consider a Clickwrap Agreement

Clickwrap agreements require a user to check a box or push a button signifying that they have seen and read the terms before making a sale. Browsewrap on the other hand, assumes that users have read and agreed to terms because they have been conspicuously posted. While both types of agreements will be enforced under the right conditions, if the organization and structure of your site permits a clickwrap agreement it is always best to have an affirmative action that shows a manifestation of intent to enter into an agreement.

For more information about e-commerce and online contracts visit the WLF Lawyers website: http://www.wlflawyers.com.