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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083149/http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf to https://www.eff.org/legal/cases/ACRA_v_Lexmark/ACRA_v_Lexmark_9th_circuit_ruling.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070821004733/http://www.lexmark.com:80/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_659906197_676633516_en,00.html to http://www.lexmark.com/lexmark/sequentialem/home/0,6959,204816596_659906197_676633516_en,00.html

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

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

reason for the decision
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)