It is a basic tenet of contract law that in order to be binding, a contract requires a "meeti ng of the minds" and "a manifestati on ofmutual assent" [citati ons omitt ed]. The making of contracts over the internet "has not fundamentally changed the principles ofcontract." Register.com, Inc. v. Verio, Inc., 356 F.3d 393, 403 (2nd Cir. 2004). On the internet, the primary means of forming a contractare the so-called "clickwrap" (or "click-through") agreements, in which website users typically click on "I agree" box aft er beingpresented with a list of terms and conditi ons of use, and the "browsewrap" agreements, where website terms and conditi ons of use areposted on the website typically as a hyperlink at the bott om of the screen. Unlike a clickwrap agreement, a browsewrap agreement"does not require the user to manifest assent to the terms and conditi ons expressly . . . [a] party instead gives his assent simply by usingthe website" [citati on omitt ed]. In ruling upon the validity of a browsewrap agreement, courts consider primarily "whether a websiteuser has actual or constructi ve knowledge of a site's terms and conditi ons prior to using the site." In Specht, the plainti ff s had downloaded free soft ware from the defendant's website; because they did not scroll down the page, theydid not see the noti ce advising site-users to review and agree to the soft ware license agreement's terms prior to downloading. TheSecond Circuit held that the plainti ff s were not bound by t