C9 delivered helium-filled tanks to SVC in a “rush order” without having SVC sign the invoice. A boy was injured when one of the tanks fell on him. Both C9 and SVC settled the claim for the boy’s injuries. C9 sued SVC for indemnification because on the reverse side of the invoice there was a provision requiring SVC to indemnify C9 for any loss arising out of the use or possession of the tanks. The appellate court found the indemnity provision unenforceable because SVC had not “manifested assent” to the term. C9 Ventures v. SVC-West, L.P. (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; January 27, 2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 1483, [136 Cal.Rptr.3d 550].