Final answer:
Defenses that can easily apply to Internet contracts include unconscionability (unfair or oppressive terms), misrepresentation (false statements relied on by another party), and duress (forced into agreeing without real consent).
Step-by-step explanation:
Using your understanding of the defenses explored in the previous lesson, we can identify a few defenses that can easily apply to Internet contracts. One such defense is the defense of unconscionability, which holds that a contract is invalid if it is unfair or oppressive to one party. This could apply to Internet contracts that include terms not reasonably expected by a user or are buried in fine print within terms and conditions.
Another defense is misrepresentation, which occurs when one party makes a false statement that the other party relies on when deciding to enter into the contract. In the context of Internet contracts, this could apply if, for instance, the service provider's website contains inaccurate information that influences a user's decision to agree to the contract.
Lastly, the defense of duress may be relevant if a user is forced or pressured into agreeing to an online contract without real consent. Although this is less common for Internet contracts, it could potentially apply in situations where software is installed without the user's true consent, under threat of negative consequences.