Cynthia Hines purchased a vacuum cleaner online from Overstock.com, believing that she was buying an unused product. When the vacuum cleaner was delivered, however, Hines discovered that it was not new but rather had been “refurbished.” Hines returned the vacuum, and Overstock credited her with the purchase price less a $30 “restocking fee.” Hines brought suit against Overstock on behalf of a class of customers who had been charged such fees. Overstock moved to dismiss the case or stay the action in favor of arbitration, arguing that the “Terms and Conditions” of its website contained an arbitration clause, and therefore, the parties had an agreement to arbitrate the dispute. Overstock presented no evidence, however, that Hines had actually had the opportunity to see or read the Terms and Conditions prior to allegedly “accepting” them simply by using the website. Should the parties be forced to arbitrate?