Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 32 of
32
with 100 triples per page.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc abstract "Kanitz v Rogers Cable Inc, [2002] O.J. No. 665 is a leading Canadian decision on website service contracts. The court held that a posting on a corporate website is sufficient notice to bind customers to changes in their user licenses.A number of Rogers Cable customers started a class action to challenge Rogers amending of the arbitration provision in their user agreement. They claimed that customers were not given sufficient notice of the amendments to make it valid. Rogers should have emailed all its customers to properly notify them.The Court held that the notice given was sufficient and that an email was not necessary. Customers, the judge held, were obliged to check the website from time to time for amendments to their user agreements.The Court also upheld the arbitration agreement itself, as well as a \"no class actions\" clause. In other words, the parts of the contract that forbade Rogers customers from going to a regular court (forcing them instead to seek redress from an arbitration panel) and from suing as a class were deemed valid. The Ontario legislature quickly responded by including provisions in the 2002 Consumer Protection Act that make both \"no class action\" clauses and \"arbitration clauses\" unenforceable in consumer contracts.".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageExternalLink 02-ontsc-kanitzvrogers?practiceAreaMessage=true&practiceArea=Technology%20Law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageID "4755049".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageLength "1734".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageOutDegree "10".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageRevisionID "644135983".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Canada.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:2002_in_Canadian_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:2002_in_Ontario.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:Canadian_articles_needing_infoboxes.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:Canadian_contract_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:Law_articles_needing_an_infobox.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Category:Ontario_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Email.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink List_of_Ontario_Legislative_Assemblies.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLink Service_contract.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageWikiLinkText "Kanitz v Rogers Cable Inc".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Canada-law-stub.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wikiPageUsesTemplate Template:Italic_title.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:2002_in_Canadian_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:2002_in_Ontario.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:Canadian_articles_needing_infoboxes.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:Canadian_contract_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:Law_articles_needing_an_infobox.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc subject Category:Ontario_case_law.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc comment "Kanitz v Rogers Cable Inc, [2002] O.J. No. 665 is a leading Canadian decision on website service contracts. The court held that a posting on a corporate website is sufficient notice to bind customers to changes in their user licenses.A number of Rogers Cable customers started a class action to challenge Rogers amending of the arbitration provision in their user agreement. They claimed that customers were not given sufficient notice of the amendments to make it valid.".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc label "Kanitz v Rogers Cable Inc".
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc sameAs Q6363295.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc sameAs m.0cllw4.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc sameAs Q6363295.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc wasDerivedFrom Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc?oldid=644135983.
- Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc isPrimaryTopicOf Kanitz_v_Rogers_Cable_Inc.