Wachter Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc.

144 P.3d 747 (2006)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Wachter Management Co. v. Dexter & Chaney, Inc.

Kansas Supreme Court
144 P.3d 747 (2006)

  • Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Play video

Facts

Dexter & Chaney, Inc. (DCI) (defendant) developed, sold, and supported software for the construction industry. Wachter Management Company (Wachter) (plaintiff) was a construction management company based in Kansas. DCI made a written proposal to Wachter for the purchase of an accounting and project management software system. In addition to software, the proposal included a year of maintenance, training, and consulting. The proposal did not contain an integration clause, but it also did not indicate that Wachter might be required to agree to additional terms. Wachter’s agent signed the proposal. DCI shipped the software to Wachter. The packaging of the software included a licensing agreement, sometimes referred to as a shrinkwrap agreement. The shrinkwrap agreement stated that by opening the package containing DCI’s software, Wachter would be bound by the terms of the shrinkwrap agreement. Among other things, the terms of the shrinkwrap agreement included a choice of venue provision that required disputes to be resolved in Washington, where DCI was located. Wachter installed the software. About 18 months later, Wachter sued DCI in Kansas seeking $350,000 in damages arising from problems with the software. DCI moved to dismiss, arguing that the choice of venue clause in its shrinkwrap agreement required Wachter to bring suit in Washington. The trial court denied DCI’s motion, holding that the shrinkwrap agreement constituted an attempt to add terms to the parties’ original contract. DCI appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Rosen, J.)

Dissent (Luckert, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 806,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership