Klocek v. Gateway, Inc.

Facts

William Klocek bought a Gateway computer and a Hewlett-Packard scanner, and he sued both companies. He claimed Gateway induced him and other consumers to buy computers and support packages by falsely promising technical support. He also claimed Gateway breached warranties that the computer would work with standard peripherals and internet services. He claimed Hewlett-Packard breached a duty to warn consumers that its products were incompatible with Gateway computers. Gateway included a copy of its Standard Terms and Conditions in the box with the computer. A boxed notice at the top said that by keeping the computer beyond five days after delivery, the customer accepts the terms. Paragraph 10 required arbitration of any dispute arising out of or relating to the agreement, under the International Chamber of Commerce rules in Chicago, Illinois. The record on the sale was thin. Gateway's affidavit said it shipped a computer to Klocek on or about August 31, 1997, with no other details. His complaint said he lived in Missouri. In his response to Gateway's motion, Klocek said he bought the computer in person at Gateway's store in Overland Park, Kansas, on August 27, 1997, and took it with him. The parties agreed that he paid for and received a computer. His complaint listed $24,000 plus unitemized punitive damages against Hewlett-Packard.

Issues

1. Under Kansas or Missouri law, did Klocek agree to Gateway's Standard Terms, including the arbitration clause, by keeping the computer more than five days after delivery?
2. Did Klocek's complaint show enough at stake against Hewlett-Packard to meet the amount required for federal diversity jurisdiction?
3. Can a plaintiff who represents himself serve as an adequate representative of a class?

Holding

On the evidence Gateway presented, and under Kansas or Missouri law, keeping the computer past five days did not show that Klocek expressly agreed to the Standard Terms, so Gateway's arbitration-based motion to dismiss was overruled; it also failed because Gateway had not shown which state's law governed formation. The claims against Hewlett-Packard were dismissed because the complaint did not support the amount needed for diversity jurisdiction.