0 0
United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi - 214 F. Supp. 2d 679
Tags: Contracts, arbitration, modification
The court has granted the plaintiffs' motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act in a dispute over a home satellite system financed through a revolving credit card account. The defendant argues that his agreement does not include a provision for mandatory arbitration, but the plaintiffs contend that it does. The Cardholder Agreement for the Account establishes that it can only be used for Purchase Advances from participating merchants, and the user must sign a Sales Slip or written authorization for such purchases. The Agreement includes a provision for mandatory arbitration of any claim, dispute, or controversy arising from or relating to the Agreement or the resulting relationships. The arbitration will be conducted by the National Arbitration Forum, and either party may elect to use arbitration at any time, regardless of whether a lawsuit has been filed. The arbitration agreement is governed by the Federal Arbitration Act and requires the arbitrator to apply relevant law and provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The defendant failed to reject changes to the agreement within 30 days, resulting in the changes becoming effective. The plaintiffs argue that Payton became bound by the arbitration provision in the Household Cardholder Agreement by continuing to maintain his account after it was transferred to Household and after being informed of the terms of the new agreement. The defendant denies agreeing to arbitrate any disputes with the plaintiffs and argues that the putative arbitration agreement(s) are unconscionable and unenforceable because the National Arbitration Forum has a bias in favor of lenders and against consumers. However, the court previously ruled in Bank One v. Coates that a lender could add an arbitration provision to an existing agreement if the original agreement authorized the lender to "change or amend the terms" of the agreement.
LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.
Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.
Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.
Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.
DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.
Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.
Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.
Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.