Who holds the burden of proof, here?

[stebbinsd]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

This case concerns a browse wrap agreement that I've got with a website that requires legal disputes to be held in California.

One of the most common problems that courts often find with browse wrap agreements is that they often lack a meeting of the minds; the consumer (the one browsing the website and allegedly accept the agreement by using the website) often never sees the contract, or even knows that it's there.

Who holds the burden of proof in such a case, under California law?

I mean, at first glance, it seems like the burden of proof would lie on the proponent of the contract (in this case, the website), but at the same time, a lack of understanding of the terms of the contract sounds an awful lot like "unilateral mistake," and that is an affirmative defense.

How does California law approach the issue? Furthermore, can someone please cite some case law on point? It doesn't have to concern a browse wrap agreement; it just has to concern the burden of proof in a dispute over whether or not a meeting of the minds was reached.

 

[cbg]

Posting hx is an absolute must, folks.

 

[stebbinsd]

Posting hx is an absolute must, folks.

What are you talking about?

Posting hx? What's that?

 

[Proserpina]

What are you talking about?

Posting hx? What's that?

Considering it's a phrase that's been used in virtually every one of your threads, I'm fairly certain you know exactly what it means.

 

[justalayman]

have you ever considered doing any of your own research? Heck, Wikipedia has a page on browse wrap agreements that addresses most of your questions.

try google using; browse wrap agreement

there is a lot of easily accessible information.