Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): and thus held that the entire agreement was unenforceable. In reaching this conclusion, the district court determined that the cost-splitting provision was severable from the rest of the agreement; had it reached the contrary conclusion, it would not have proceeded to consider the enforceability of the remainder of the agreement. We agree with the district court’s determination that the cost-splitting provision at issue in the present case was sever-able from the rest of the arbitration agreement. That provision was not interwoven with the rest of the agreement and may be deleted without affecting the rest of the agreement’s provisions regarding arbitration. This conclusion is consistent with both Tennessee contract law and our own precedents. See also Giordano, 2001 WL 484360, at *6 (<HOLDING>); Fuller v. Pep Boys-Manny, Moe & Jack of Del., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that limitation of liability provisions in arbitration agreement included in nursing homes admissions documents violated public policy and were not severable because they constituted financial heart of arbitration agreement (B) holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement (C) holding that when agreement includes severability provision intent of the parties and policy in favor of arbitration dictate that rest of agreement should be held enforceable (D) holding that costsplitting provision in pep boys arbitration agreement is severable from the rest of the agreement (E) holding that arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where agree ment did not limit punitive damages and limitation of liability provision was severable if unenforceable
Output (English): holding that arbitration agreement was not unconscionable where agree ment did not limit punitive damages and limitation of liability provision was severable if unenforceable