buisness law

SCENARIO:

Marcus, feeling stressed out from work, decided to search for a meditation app for his phone that would help him relax during the day. One app, CalmDown, appeared to be promising. It didn't have any reviews yet and looked to be a brand-new app, so he decided to try it out. He downloaded the app to his phone and opened it up. The first screen required he enter in his name and email address. At the very bottom of the screen it had some small writing, but Marcus didn't notice it and hit the continue button.

Had Marcus clicked on the link at the bottom of the screen, he would have seen the following:

The second screen stated "Three-day trial version- Free! $59.99 annual fee thereafter." Marcus was annoyed that the app would cost him almost $60 but figured he would set a reminder on his phone to cancel the app before the trial period expired so he wouldn't get charged. Plus, he wanted to see the app in action. If it was actually worth the price, he wouldn't mind paying the annual fee. He clicked "Continue" and put in his bank card information on the next screen. The following screen asked Marcus a series of questions about his stress level and what he felt caused stress in his life. He clicked "high" and "work" as the level and cause. He then completed the first CalmDown meditation in the app, but was not impressed with its functionality. Deciding he would cancel his subscription immediately, he went into the profile settings to try to find the cancel option but couldn't. He searched every possible place on the app but didn't see a way to cancel the subscription. Marcus decided to try to find the app's developer through their website, but a quick search didn't turn up anything. Already stressed and becoming more frustrated, Marcus decided to contact the app store. They informed him that he should be able to go into his app store account and cancel the subscription there. However, when Marcus went there, he didn't see the app as an option or as a subscription. Thinking that maybe his subscription didn't process, he just deleted the app from his phone.

Marcus didn't give the app or the subscription any more thought, becoming increasingly more distracted by the amount of stress at work. Four months later, Marcus was looking at his bank account online and noticed it was lower than it should have been. He began reviewing the charges and noticed multiple charges for $59.99 to a merchant named "CDgotU." He immediately remembered the app and contacted his bank to dispute the charges. His bank replied that due to the charges being debit withdraws he needed to dispute them within 2 days of being made. Moreover, if he had been diligent about watching his account, they could have put a block on the account and the remaining fraudulent charges would have been prevented. The bank representative also told him that he should try to get a refund from the company that charged him. After making his case with the bank representative for several hours about how he tried to cancel his subscription, he was unsuccessful. The bank's representative was able to provide Marcus a phone number attached to the Merchant account, but when Marcus called the number it was disconnected. The bank could not provide him with any additional information such as a company address or website.

After more internet searching, Marcus saw a number of other complaints online about the app, and noticed it had been removed from the app store and was no longer available for download. Marcus decided to bring an action against the company for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and several other claims in his home state of Vermont.

1. Answer the following in 5-10 sentences.

Marcus, a resident of Vermont, decides to sue the maker of CalmDown in a Vermont state court. He is permitted by the court to serve the company by email, as he cannot find an address for the company and convinces the judge that email would be the best way to accomplish service. The maker of CalmDown responds to the service claiming that Vermont courts have no jurisdiction over the business, because it is an out-of-state defendant with its principle place of business in Alaska. Moreover, they have never marketed their product in Vermont and only sold a few subscriptions before it removed the app from the app store. Is it appropriate for a Vermont court to exercise jurisdiction in this case? Why or why not?