a post-petition tort can create an administrative claim). The Debtor disputes Google’s entitlement to an administrative claim contending that it did not convert any property of Google, because once Google returned the modules to the Debtor, title in them re-vested in the Debtor under applicable law. Under California’s Uniform Commercial Code (“the UCC”), when a buyer of goods returns or refuses to retain goods for dules, the Debtor argues that its resale of them to other customers could not be a conversion of property of Google. Google contends that the parties’ agreement, rather than the UCC, controls. See Cal. Com. Code § 2719 (allowing parties to modify or limit remedies available under 2401). Cf. U.S. Achievement Acad. v. Pitney Bowes, Inc., 458 F.Supp.2d 389, 402 (E.D.Ky.2006) (<HOLDING>). Google contends that section 7 of the Terms
holding that party did not waive right to trial by jury by requesting directed verdict holding that the party did not waive its right to enforce the arbitration clause holding that a party can contractually waive its right to reject or revoke acceptance of goods holding that an individual can waive any process to which he or she has a right recognizing the right to waive a jury trial