Isn't there yet another way the contract is invalid (since they go through a few already)? It's stated in the article that the customer never received the item they paid for. Isn't the contract contingent on both parties following through (the customer paying, the business delivering paid for service or goods)?
Also, according to one of the original news reports, the husband ordered and (supposedly/arguably) agreed to the terms - but it was his wife who posted the review. She never agreed to the terms and thus cannot be bound by them.
