Talk:Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

reason for the decision[edit]

I suspect the reason why the court ruled it was legal is because the consumer made an agreement when they bought the cartridge not to refill it in exchange for a lower price. The reduction in price is the consideration for a contract. Hence it's not actually a boxwrap contract as such- the consumer enters a contract to purchase an ink cartridge in exchange for a certain amount of money plus a promise to return the cartridge when empty. (The way I understand it, functionally you're paying for the ink in the cartridge, not the cartridge itself. Hence needing to return it afterwards.Sstabeler (talk) 22:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]