Reference no: EM133682939

Question 

Century 21 Canada Limited Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc. Century 21 Canada is a company that operates real sales offices throughout Canada. Century 21 operates a website in order to market its real estate listings. Zoocasa is a subsidiary of Rogers Communications that operates a website that compiles and lists real estate listings in Canada from many different companies. The Zoocasa website operates as a form of search engine that indexes and links real estate listings from multiple websites including the Century 21 website. The Century 21 website includes terms of use that restrict websites like Zoocasa from indexing and linking to their website. The terms of use are located in a link at the bottom of the Century 21 website. They are not brought to the attention of the user in any way, and the user is not required to sign or otherwise indicate their acceptance of the terms of use. Century 21 Canada sues Zoocasa and claims that their terms of use constitute a binding contract and that Zoocasa breached this contract through their access and display of content from Century 21 on their own website. Zoocasa replies that there is no binding contract, as users are not directed to the terms of use and are not required to accept the terms of use. They allege that this is an attempt to impose a unilateral contract. They also argue that there is no consideration provided and therefore no contract between the parties.

1. Are all the elements of a binding contract present in this case?

2. Do you believe that a binding contract has been formed between Century 21 and Zoocasa?

3. How do you think the law of contracts should change to reflect modern changes in technology?