Bates V. Bate Case Summary

This case took into account when Nolan Bates, a subscriber to an Internet program to find his “Match” online, sued its software developer Apricot.com for deactivating the software program. This was done after he had declined to pay the license fees of $200 monthly required for using the software for three months. Apricot.com then decided to disable the software without notifying Bates. Also, it sent a letter containing disrespectful language to Bates stating that: “Loser, the license was canceled!”. In an ethical point of view, both parties acted unethically. Essentially, Bates was aware of and also accepted the terms and conditions to be able to use the software program. His action was counter to what was actually expected of him. On the other hand, Apricot.com was in breach of ethical twice. The manner in …show more content…
However, his claim is not supported by the law since he was in breach of contract with Apricot.com. Licensing a software program is considered as an electronic contract between the users and the software developer. And paying the license fee is part of a mutual “agreement” between the parties. Bates was assumed to fully be aware of this as he accepted and terms and conditions, yet he failed to perform in accordance with the agreement. Additionally, both parties have to give up something valuable in exchange, referred to “consideration”. Apricot.com let Bate use the software, but Bates failed to pay the license fees. In other words, he didn't give up any consideration. This results in a material breach of contract, in which Bate's failure to pay the license fee is so substantial that defeats the purpose of the contract. The non-breaching party – Apricot.com – is thus no longer obligated to complete their performance under the contract. That justifies their action of deactivating Bates'