I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 0 3 6 9 - S CT LACI E CY LESSSM

I TH
v. E X P R ES SC H E C K A D V A N C E O F M ISS ISS IP P I, LLC D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 30/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. LE E J
. HOW ARD T RI AL CO UR T AT T OR NE YS : J I M W AI DE RO N L. W O O D RU FF J
. TUC KER M I TCH ELL COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: CLAY COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: J I M W AI DE RO N L. W O O D RU FF ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: J
. TUC KER M I TCH ELL STEP HEN DEA N STA M BO ULI EH NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 10/ 02/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. W hen Expres s C heck A dv ance of M i ssi ssi pp i , L L C , empl oyed Laci e Sm i th, s he agr eed t o s ubm i t“any empl oym ent - r el at ed di s put e” t o arbi tr at i on. L at er , i n re s pons e t o her ter m in a tio n , S m ith c o m m e n c e d leg a l p ro c e e d in g s a g a in st E x p re ss C h e c k in c irc u it co u rt. Th e tr i a l j u d g e c o mp e l l e d a rb i tr a t i o n a n d S mi th a p p e a l e d
. W e a f f i r m.

### 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. W hen Expre s s C heck hi r ed Sm i t h fora cl eri cal p osi t i on , she si gn ed a tw o- page documentent i t l ed “N on- C om pet i t i on and C onf i dent i al i ty A gr eement . ” Sect i on s i x of t hat documents t at ed: 6
. ENFO RCEM ENT. 6. 1 I nj unctive Relief

. A s s oci at e ac know l edges thati tw oul d be di f f i cul tt o f ul l y compensa t e the Em pl oyerf ordamages r es ult i ng f

r om any br eac h by A s s oci at e of the pr ovi s i ons of

, thi s A gr eement . A ccor dingl y, A s s oci at e ag r ees that , i n addi t i on t o, butnott o the exc l us i on of , any other re m e d y , the E m p lo y e r sh a ll h a v e th e rig h t to e n fo rc e th e p ro v isio n s o f th is A gr e e mentby a pp l yi ng f ora ndob t a i ni ng t empora ry and perm anentr es tr ai ni ng or der s ori nj unct i ons f r om a cou r tof

compet entj ur i s di ct i on w i thoutthe nece s s i ty of

f i l i ng a bond ther ef

or e, a nd w i thoutthe nec es s i ty of pr ovi ng actual d a m a g e s, a n d th e E m p lo y e r sh a ll b e e n tit led to re c o v e r fro m A ss o c ia te its re a so n a b le a tto rn e y s’ f e e s a n d c o sts in e n fo rc in g th e p ro v isi o n s o f th is A g re e m e n t. 6. 2 Se ttle m ent

by A rbitr ati on. P u rsu a n t to th e ter m s o f th is A gr eement , and i n val uabl e cons i der at i on re cei ved i n excha nge ther ef or e, the p a rties h e re to a g re e th a t an y e m p lo y m e n t-re late d d isp u te, c o n tro v e rsy o r c laim that A ssoci at e m ay h ave w i th E m ployer and / or any o f i t s ass ociat es, off i cers , m e m b e rs, m a n a g e rs, g o v e rn o rs, p a re n ts, su b sid iar ies , aff ili a tes o r a g e n ts, in th e ir c a p a c ity a s s u c h o r o th e rw ise , o r th a t E m p lo y e r a n d /o r a n y o f its associ at es, off

i cers , m em bers, m anag ers , go vernors, parent s, subsi diar i es, af f i l i at es oragent s m ay have w i th A s s oci at e, s hal l be r es olved o nl y thr ough arbi tr at i on and n o t thr o u g h li ti g a ti o n in fe d er a l, state o r loc a l cou rt. A s s oci at e agr ees thathe/ s he ca nnotbr i ng any cl ai m orl aw s ui t , oract as a l ead pl ai nt i f

f i n or otherw i s e par t i ci pat e i n any cl as s act i on l aw s ui t , i n any f eder al , s t at e orl ocal courti nvol vi ng thi s A gr eement , appl i cat i on orcandi dacy for e m p loy m en t, em p loy m e n t, o r ce ssation o f em p loy m en t w ith E m p loy er, in c lu d in g , b u t in n o w a y lim ited to, cla im s a risin g u n d e r T itl e V II o f th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 6 4 , the C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 9 1 , the A g e D isc rim in a tio n in E m pl oym entA ct , the A m eri cans w i th D i sabi l i t i es A ct , the Fam i l y and M edi cal Le a v e Ac to f

1 9 9 3 , 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 9 8 1 , th e A s s o c i a t e Re t i r e me n tI n c o me S e c u rity A c t (E R IS A ), th e F a ir L a b o r S tan d a rd s A c t, th e O c c u p a tio n a l H e a lth and Saf ety A ct , the W or kerA dj us t m enta nd Ret r ai ni ng N ot i f i cat i on A ct , the hum an r i ght s act , ors i m i l aract , of any st at e, the publ i c pr ot ect i on act , or s i m i l aract , of

any s t at e, any cl ai m base d on expr es s or i m pl i ed contr act , any

### 3

cl ai m s of pr om i s s ory est oppel , any act i on ar i s i ng i n t or t , i ncl udi ng, buti n no w ay l i m i t ed t o, l i bel , s l ander , def amat i on, i nt ent i onal i nfl i ct i on of emot i onal di s tr es s , or ne gl i gence , any cl ai m f orw r ongf

ul di s char ge, any cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s orany cl ai m s underal l l aw s re l at i ng t o the vi ol at i on of publ i c pol i cy, re talia tio n o r c o m p e n s a tio n , a n y c la im s a ri s in g u n d e r e m p lo y m e n t o r d is a b ili ty di s cr i m i nat i on orw hi s t l ebl ow erl aw s , or any otherst atut ory or c om m on- l aw cl ai m s und er f

ederal , s t at e or l ocal l aw . A di spute, contr ov ers y o r cl ai m i s al so c o n sid e re d su b

jec t to th is p o licy if it aris e s o r in v o lv e s a n y iss u e p e rta in in g to thi s A gr eement , the f

or m at i on of

thi s A gr eement , t he s cope of thi s A gr eement orthe Par ty’ s pe r f

or m ance of

thi s A gr eement . A s s oci at e under st and s that h e /sh e is w a iv in g the rig h t t o a ju ry tri a l fo r an y su c h cla im . T h is p ro v isio n is m utual l y bi ndi ng upon bot h E m pl oyerand A s s oci at e, as i ndi cat ed by the a c k n o wl e d g me n ts e tf

o r th b e l o w. A s s oci at e u nd e r s t a nd s tha th e / s he h a s the r i gh tt o be r e pr e s e nt e d by t he att orney of

hi s /herchoi ce i n pur s ui ng any em pl oym ent - r el at ed di s put e, contr over s y orcl ai m underthi s A gr eement . A s s oci at e f ur therunder s t ands and agr ees thatthe dec i s i on of the A rbi tr at orw i l l be FI N A L A N D B I N D I N G on a ll p a rties to th e d isp u te. T h e re is n o a p p e a l o n th e m e ri ts o f th e d isp u te to feder al , st at e or l ocal court s. T hi s s ect i on i s t o be cons trued pur s uantt o the t erm s of the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct , 9 U
. S. C
. § 1 etseq. T he pr ovi s i ons of a ny arbi tr at i on actors t atut e under the l aw s of

the St at e of

M i s s i s s i ppi , do notappl y t o thi s s ect i on. ¶ 3
. S e c tio n s e v e n in c lu d e d m isc e llan e o u s p ro v isio n s, in c lu d in g a se v e ra b ili ty c lau se , a ch o ice-o f-l aw p rov isi o n , an d a n o tat ion that “[t ] h e h ea d ing s co n tai n ed in this A g ree m en t are f orr ef er ence purpos es onl y and s hal l noti n any w ay af f ectthe m eani ng ori nt erpr et at i on of th is A g re e m e n t.” ¶4. Sm i th s i gned the a gr e e menta nds e pa r a t e l y i ni t i al ed an a cknow l edgmentacc ept i ng the arb itrat i on provis i on . S he als o ini t i al ed an ackn ow l edg m ent that s he h ad read the en ti re
a g re e m e n t. ¶5. A f

t er E xpr es s C heck t erm i nat ed Sm i th, s he f i l ed s ui t , cl ai m i ng that s he w as f i r ed f or
r eport i ng hers upervi s or ’ s i l l egal act s . Expr es s Check a ns w er ed, de ni ed the al l egat i ons , andIll . C en t. R.R. C

o. v. McD an iel, 9 51 So . 2 d 5 23 , 5 26 (Mi ss. 20 06 ). 1 Virginia Coll., LLC v. Blackmon , 109 So
. 3d1 05 0, 1053 (Mi ss. 2013) (ci ting Un iv. 2 Nursing Assocs., PLLC v. Phillips , 8 42 So . 2 d 1 27 0, 12 76 (Mi ss. 20 03 )). 

### 4 m o v e d to c o m p e l arb itratio n p u rsu a n t to th e “ N o n -C o m p e tit io n a n d C o n fid e n tiality A gr eement . ” Sm i th r es ponded t o E xpr es s C heck’ s m ot i on by ar gui ng t hatthe agr eementw as p ro c e d u ra lly a n d su b sta n tiv e ly u n c o n sc io n a b le, th a t sh e n e v e r k n o w in g ly ag re e d to a rb itrate her cl ai m s, and that s he si gn ed the agreem ent unde r dures s. ¶ 6
. A t th e h e a ri n g o n it s m o tio n , E x p re ss C h e c k in tro d u c e d th e a g re e m e n t an d S m ith t es t i f i ed, ar gui ng t hatthe arbi tr at i on cl aus e w as proc edur al l y unconsc i onabl e bec aus e no one t ol d hert o r ead the agr eementorexpl ai ned i t s m eani ng. She al s o ar gued thatthe agr eement
w as subst anti vely unc on sci on able because she lacks the fi nan ci al res ou rces t o b ear the co st of arbi tr at i on. ¶7. I n hi s or dercompel l i ng arbi tr at i on, t he t r i al j udge st at ed t hatthe agr eementw as not pr ocedur al l y uncons ci onabl e bec aus e, unl es s i l l i t er at e, Sm i th ha d a duty t o r ead i t , and that she cou l d h ave refused t o si gn the ag reem en t and sou gh tem ploym ent el sew here. H e al so fo u n d th a t th e a g re e m e n t w a s n o t su b sta n tiv e ly u n c o n sc io n a b le b e c a u se S m ith fa iled to pr oduce a ny evi dence of the cos tof

arbi tr at i on. Sm i th appea l ed. A N A L Y S IS ¶8
. In re v iew ing an ap p ea l of an o rde r co m p ell ing a rbitrati o n , w e re v iew the tri al jud g e’s f actual fi ndi ngs underan abuse
- of
- di s cr et i on s t andar d, and w e conduc ta de novo r evi ew of 1 al l l egal conclusi on s. 2 T he Feder al

A rbitr ati on A ctCovenant Health & Rehab., LP v. Estateof Moulds , 14 S o. 3 d 69 5, 6 98 (Miss. 2009) 3 (citi ng IP Ti mberland s O pera tin g C o. v. Denm issCo rp , 726 So. 2d 96, 107 (Miss. 1998) ( quoting Southland Corp. v. Keating , 46 5 U.S
. 1, 10, 104 S. Ct. 852, 79 L. Ed. 2d 1, 12 (1984) (citi ng 9 U. S. C. § 2 (19 76 ))) ). 9 U .S .C . § 2 (1 97 6). 4 Ci rcu it C ity St ores, In c. v. Ad

ams , 532 U.S. 105, 109, 121 S. Ct. 1302, 1306, 149 L. Ed. 5 2d 23 4 (2 00 1). Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699 (citing Do cto r’sAsso cs. v. Casa ro tto , 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S. 6 Ct . 1 65 2, 16 56 , 1 34 L. Ed . 2 d 9 02 , 9 09 (19 96 )). Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699. 7 Ro gers- Dabbs C hevro let -Hu mmer, Inc

. v. Bl aken ey , 9 50 So . 2 d 1 70 , 1 73 (Mi ss. 20 07 ). 8 Id. (quoting East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor , 8 26 So . 2 d 7 09 , 7 13 (Mi ss. 20 02 )). 9 

### 5 ¶9. T hr ough the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct , C ongr es s i m pos ed a nat i onal pol i cy i n f avorof
arbi tr at i on. A rbi tr at i on agr eement s “s hal l be val i d, i rr evoca bl e, and enf or cea bl e, s ave upon 3
su ch g rou n d s as e x istat law or i n eq u ity for th e re v o ca ti o n o f an y co n tr ac t. ” T h e statute’s 4 eff ectextends t o arbi trat i on agreem ents i n em ploym ent cont ract s. 5 ¶10. T he A ct ens ur es that “[ a] rbi tr at i on agr eement s and other contr act t erm s s houl d be on equal f oot i ng, i n thats t at e court s may noti nval i dat e arbi tr at i on agr eement s underl aw s that af f ectonl y arbi tr at i on agr eement s , ” and that“ arbi tr at i on c l aus es s hal l notr ece i ve es peci al 6 treatm ent nototherw ise a v ail ab l e un der basi c st at e con tractpri ncipl es. ” S o, cou rt s m ust 7 compel arbi tr at i on i f

the part i es val i dl y agr eed t o arbi tr at e the di s put e ati s s ue. 8 ¶11. T o det erm i ne w hether part i es agr eed t o arbi tr at e thei r di s put es , court s i nvoke a tw op ro n g e d in q u iry . U n d e r th e first p ro n g , a c o u rt m u st a s c e rta in w h e th e r a n a g re e m e n t to
arbi tr at e exi s t s , the s cope of w hi ch enc om pas s es the part i es ’ di s put e. U nderthe s econd 9 pr ong, t he cour tm us tquest i on “w hetherl egal constr ai nt s ext ernal t o t he part i es ’ agr eementRogers-Dabbs , 950 So. 2d at 173 (quoting East F ord, 8 26 So . 2 d at 71 3). 10 Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699. 11 No rwest

Fi n. Miss. , I

nc . v . M cD on ald, 905 So. 2d 1187, 1193 (Miss. 2005) (cit ing Green 12 Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 92, 121 S. Ct
. 51 3, 522, 148 L. Ed. 2d 373 (20 00 )). Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699 (quoting East F ord, 8 26 So . 2 d at 71 3). 13 U.S. Const., art. I, § 10. 14 

### 6 f or ecl os ed arbi tr at i on of t hos e cl ai m s . ” U nderthi s pr ong, s t at e contr actdef ens es m ay 10 i nval i dat e t he agreem entt o arbi tr at e as they w oul d any othercontr actual pr ovi s i on. B ut 11 beca us e of

t he nat i onal pol i cy f

avor i ng arbi tr at i on, the party oppos i ng arbi tr at i on bear s the bur den t o pr ove thata contr actdef ens e appl i es i n the part i cul arcas e. 12 ¶1 2
. H ere , ne ith er pa rty dispu tes th at th e arb itratio n c lau se p u rp o rts to su b m it S m ith ’s
c laim to a rb itratio n . In d e e d , the a rb itra tio n p ro v isio n ’s b ro a d lan g u a g e re fe re n c e s “ a ll empl oym ent - r el at ed di s put es , ” and i ts peci f i cal l y i ncl udes “any c l ai m f orw r ongf

ul di s char ge. ” I ns t ead, Sm i th att acks the enf or cementof

thatpr ovi s i on bas ed on the doctr i ne of uncons ci onabi l i ty, one of the “l egal cons tr ai nt s e xt ernal t o the part i es ’ agr eement ” w hi ch
m a y fo re c lo se e n fo rc e m e n t. 13 U n c o n sc io n a b ility ¶13. So i m por t ant t o our Founder s w as the f r eedom t o contr act w i thout i nt er f er ence f r om the governm entorthe court s , thatthey cons t i tut i onal l y pr ohi bi t ed any St at e f r om pas s i ng any law “im p airi n g the o b lig a tio n s o f c o n tr ac ts . . . . ” T h at i s n o t t o say that o u r F o u n d ers 14 bel i eved c our t s s houl d never , f orany r eas on, s etas i de a c ontr actual obl i gat i on. B uts uch i ns t ance s s houl d be t he r ar e exce pt i on ra thert han the gene r al rul e; and the bas i s f orgr ant i ngTerre Hau te C oo pera gev. Bran sco me , 2 03 Mis s. 49 3, 35 So . 2 d 5 37 , 5 41 (19 48 ). 15 Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699 (quoting Co rb in o n C on tra cts§ 29.4 (2009) (quoti ng Go mbel 16 Bros. In c. v. Swift, 6 2 M isc . 2 d 1 56 , 3 07 N. Y. S. 2d 95 2, 95 4 (1 97 0); Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co. , 3 50 F. 2d

44 5, 44 9 (D .C . C ir. 19 65 )))
. Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 699 (cit ing Entergy Miss., Inc. v . Burdette Gin Co. , 726 So. 2d 1202, 17 12 07 (Mi ss. 19 98 ); East F ord, 8 26 So . 2 d at 71 4; Vicksburg Partners, L.P. v. Stephens , 911 So. 2d 507, 521 (Miss. 2005) , ov erruled o n o the r gro un dsby Moulds , 1 4 S o. 3d at 7 06 ; Bank of Ind., 

### 7 s uch extr aor di nary r el i ef t o a c ontr act i ng party s houl d notbe a j udge’ s s ubj ect i ve conc l us i on thatthe contr acti s notf ai r . Fai r nes s i s f

orthe part i es t o deci de. T hati s w hy the doctr i ne of
uncons ci onabi l i ty tr adi t i onal l y has appl i ed onl y t o the mostegr egi ous of contr actual si tuati on s. ¶1 4
. A n u n co n scio n ab le co n tr ac t i s “ o n e s u c h a s n o m a n in h is se n ses a n d n o t un d er a del us i on w oul d m ake on the one ha nd, and as no hones tand f ai rm an w oul d acc epton t he other
. . . . ” W e pr evi ous l y have he l d:

15 C orbi n ex po un ds on the m eaning o f “unco nsci on able” as f oll ow s: “U ncons ci onabl e” i s a w or d thatdef i es l aw yer - l i ke def

i ni t i on. I ti s a t e r m b o r r o we d f r o m m o r a l p h i l o s o p h y a n d e th i c s . As cl os e t o a def

i ni t i on as w e ar e l i kel y t o geti s “thatw hi ch ‘ af fr on t s the s ens e of

dece ncy. ’ ” A m uch- quot ed j udi ci al def i ni t i on i s “ an abs ence of meani ngf

ul c hoi ce on the partof

one o f th e p arties tog ethe r w ith co n tr ac t t erm s w h ich a re u n re a s o n a b ly fa v o ra b le to th e o th e r p a rt y .” 16 O urpr ece dentf

ol l ow s the Wil

lia ms ( “abs ence of

m eani ng ful choi ce” ) l anguage as quot ed above f r om C orbi n. U ncons ci onabi l i ty can be pr ocedur al ors ubs t ant i ve. U nder“ s ubs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty, w e l ook w i thi n the f our c o rn e rs o f a n a g re e m e n t in o rd e r to d isc o v e r a n y a b u se s re latin g to th e sp e c ific t erm s w hi ch vi ol at e the expe ct at i ons of , orcaus e gr os s di s par i ty betw een, the contr act i ng part i es . ” Subs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty i s pr oven b y oppr es s i ve c o n tra c t term s s u c h th a t “ th e re is a o n e -sid e d a g re e m e n t w h e re b y o n e p a rty is depr i ved of

al l the bene f

i t s of the agreem entorl ef

tw i thouta r emedy f

or a n o th e r p a rt y ’s n o n p e rf o rm a n c e o r b re a c h . . . .” 17Na t’l

Ass’n v. Hol

yfi eld, 4 76 F. Su

pp . 1 04 , 1 10 (S .D . M iss . July 24 , 1 97 9))
. Moulds , 1 4 S o. 3d

at 6 99 (inter

na l ci tation s o mitt ed). 18 Id. 19 Id. at 701 (cit ing Stephens , 911 So. 2d at 523, ov erruled o n o the r g ro un dsby Moulds , 14 20 So . 3 d at 70 6). Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 701 (quoting East F ord, 8 26 So . 2 d at 71 6). 21 Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 701 (cit ing Stephens , 911 So. 2d at 523, overruled on other grounds 22 by Moulds , 1 4 S o. 3d

at 7 06 ). 

### 8 ¶1 5
. T h is p a ss a g e re fle c ts c e rta in c h a ra c ter istics o f a su b sta n tiv ely u n co n scio n a b le
co n tr ac t. A n u n co n scio n a b le c o n tr ac t “affron ts th e se n se o f de ce n cy . ” T h e term s o f a 18
s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e contr actar e s o unrea s onabl y f avor abl e t o one party thatt he contr acti m pos es oppr es s i ve t erm s on the w eake rparty. A nd unconsci onabi l i ty m ay be 19 evi dence d, butnotes t abl i s hed, by s how i ng thatthe contr acti s one of adhes i on. 20 ¶ 1 6
. C o n tra c ts o f a d h e sio n “ a re th o se th a t a re ‘d ra fte d u n ilate ra lly b y th e d o m in a n t p a rty and then pr es ent ed on a ‘ t ake- i t - or - l eave - i t ’ bas i s t o the w eake rparty w ho has no r eal
o p p o rtu n ity to b arg ain a b o u t i ts t erm s. S u ch c o n tr ac ts are u su all y p rep are d in p ri n ted fo rm

. . . . ’” T h e c o n tr ac t befo re u s m ay b e o n e o f ad h esio n . Itap p ea rs t o b e a p rep ri n ted fo rm

21 contr actpr epar ed by Expre s s C heck. B utSm i th f ai l ed t o pr es entany evi dence thatthe contr actw as pr es ent ed on a t ake- i t - or - l eave - i tbas i s . So w e cannotknow f ors ur e. A nd even i f w e coul d, “f

i ndi ng a contr actt o be one of adhe s i on does notaut om at i cal l y m ean thatthe
con tracto r any provis i on ther eof i s subst anti vely un con sci on able. ” S o, regardl ess, w e m ust 22 l ook t o the agr eement ’ s t erm s t o det erm i ne i f they ar e oppr es s i ve.Moulds , 14 So. 3d at 700 (cit ing Pridgen v. Green Tree Fin. Servic ing Corp. , 88 F. Supp. 23 2d 65 5, 65 8 (S .D . M iss . 2 00 0). 

### 9 ¶ 1 7
. Lo o k i n g t o t h e a g r e e me n t , we c a n n o ts a y i t s t e r ms a r e s o o n e - s i d e d a s t o b e c o me
s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e. Sect i on 6. 2 of the agr eementset s outa mut ual l y bi ndi ng
arbi tr at i on cl aus e. W er e w e t o cons i derthi s evi dence of uncons ci onabi l i ty, w e w oul d run af oul of the Feder al A rbi tr at i on A ct ’ s m andat e t o f avorarbi tr at i on. ¶18. Sect i on 6. 1, how ever , pr es ent s tw o on e - s i de d t e rms. Fi r s t , w hi l e the c on tr a c t r e l egat ed both part i es ’ cl ai m s t o arbi tr at i on, i tm ai nt ai ned Expre s s C heck’ s r i ghtt o s eek i nj unct i ve
re lief f ro m a c o u rt o f c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n . W e h a v e h e ld th a t a n a rb itr a tio n a g re e m e n t,
w h ich su b m itt e d o n e p a rty ’s c la im s to a rb itratio n w h ile m a in tain in g th e b ro a d a c c e ss to ju d icia l re m e d ies fo r th e o th e r p a rty ’s c laim s w a s u n c o n sc io n a b le. B u t th a t ca se is 23 dis t i ng uis hed because here— excep tf or the li m i t ed ri gh tt o seek inj un ct i ve rel i ef— E xp res s C h e c k is b o u n d to a rb itratio n a s w e ll. ¶ 1 9
. S e c o n d , tha t se c tio n p ro v id e s th a t S m ith m u st p a y re a so n a b le a tto rn e y s’ f e e s a n d c o sts i ncurr ed by Expr es s Check. T he pr ovi s i on i s f ound i n the i nj unct i ve- r el i ef s ect i on of t he agr eement . I ti s the thi r d s t at ementi n a se nt ence w hi ch otherw i s e s ol el y r el at es t o i nj unct i ve
r el i ef
. So a f ai rr eadi ng of

the agr eementl eads t o the concl us i on thati tappl i es t o i nj unct i ve
r el i ef al one. A nd t he pr ovi s i on does notabsol ut el y ent i t l e E xpr es s C heck t o att orneys ’ f ees and cos t s . T he cl ause st at es “.
. . and the Em pl oyers hal l be ent i t l ed t o r ecove rf r om
as s oci at es i t s r eas onabl e att orneys ’ f ees and cos t s i n e n

fo rc in gth e p ro v isio n s o f th is agr eem ent .” (E m p h a sis a d d e d .) In o rd e r to “ e n fo rc e ” a n a g re e m e n t, on e m u st p re v a il o n h isNo rwest 905 So. 2d at 1193 (cit ing Green Tree , 5 31 U. S. at 9 2). 24 

### 10 contr actcl ai m . T he pr ovi s i on w oul d be of no benef

i tt o E xpr es s C heck unl es s i tpr evai l ed i n obt ai ni ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef agai ns tSm i th. ¶ 2 0
. S o , w h ile th e p ro v isio n d o e s fa v o r E x p re ss C h e c k to s o m e d e g re e , w e c a n n o t sa y it is s o o n e -sid e d a s to b e o p p re ss iv e o r u n c o n sc io n a b le. N o r d o w e fin d it su b sta n tiv e ly
u n c o n sc io n a b le. A s s tate d a b o v e , S m ith b e a rs th e b u rd e n to sh o w th a t th e a g re e m e n t is
u n c o n sc io n a b le, an d , a lth o u g h sh e tes tified to h e r li m ited fin a n c ial m e a n s, S m ith fa iled to 24 pr es entany evi dence of the cos t s of

a rbi tr at i on. W i thoutthatevi dence , w e ca nnots ay that
cos t s pr ohi bi tSm i th f

r om pur s ui ng arbi tr at i on. ¶21. T o f

i nd the agr eements ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e, the di s s enti ncorr ect l y s hi f t s the bur den of

pr oof t o E xpr es s C heck, pr es um es f act s uns uppor t ed by the evi dence, and
m i s cons trues the evi dence pr es ent ed attr i al
. Fi r s t , the di s s ents t at es thatthe agr eementw as pr es ent ed t o Sm i th on a t ake- i t -or -l eave - i tbas i s . T he r ecor d i s devoi d of one s hr ed of
ev iden ce to su p p o rtthat statem en t. N ex t, the d issen t st ates tha t “un em p loy m en t r ates w ere h igh ” w h en S m ith so u g h t em p loy m en t f rom E x p ress C h ec k , b u t th e re c o rd is d ev o id o f a si ng l e ref

erence t o em ploym ent r at es atth att i m e. T hen , the d i ssentst at es that “[ i ] ti s al so
re a so n a b le to a ss u m e th a t m a rk e t fa c to rs, i.e., d iffic u lty fin d in g a n o th e r jo b , p re v e n ted S m ith f r om c ontr act i ng w i th a notherpa r ty ore m pl oyer . ” O nce a gai n, Sm i th pr es ent ed no evi dence thatal t ernat i ve empl oym entw as unavai l abl e orthat she even ha d att empt ed t o s eek other
e m p lo y m e n t. ¶2 2. Si m i l ar l y, t he di s s entr eb uk e s the tr i a l j ud ge ’ s s t a t e mentthatSm i t h coul d have

“ so u g h t em p lo y m e n t els e w h e re ” b y s tatin g th a t “th e re is n o e v id e n c e a s to h o w d iffic u ltEast F ord, 826 So. 2d at 714 (quoting Pr idg en , 8 8 F . S upp. 2d

at 6 57 ). 25 

### 11 obt ai ni ng s uch empl oym entm i ghthave be en or how m uch s uch empl oym entm i ghthave p a id , a s c o m p a re d to E x p re ss C h e c k .” T ru e , n o su c h ev id e n c e w a s p re se n ted . B u t if S m ith
w ant ed t o r el y on the l ack of al t ernat i ve empl oym entt o s how thatthe agr eementw as
u n c o n sc io n a b le, s h e h a d th e b u rd e n to e sta b lish th o se fa c ts, a n d sh e fa iled to d o so . N e x t, th e d i s s e n tmi s s t a t e s th e j u d i c i a l r e l i e f a v a i l a b l e t o E x p r e s s Ch e c k b y s t a t i n g “ [ i ] ta l l o ws E xpr es s C heck t o us e j udi ci al r emedi es f orvi r tual l y a l l of

the br eac hes of

the contr actt hat Sm i th coul d conce i vabl y acc om pl i s h .
. . . ” E xpr es s C heck mai nt ai ned onl y a l i m i t ed r i ght t o i nj unct i ve r el i ef

, notan unbri dl ed r i ghtt o j udi ci al re l i ef forS m i th’ s br eac hes
. Fi nal l y, t he di s s entas s um es , w i thoutany evi dent i ary support , t hatS m i th w as so des per at e f ora j ob that sh e sig n e d a n u n re a so n a b ly u n fa v o ra b le a g re e m e n t to o b tain m u c h -n e e d e d e m p lo y m e n t. ¶23. Si m pl y put, t he dis s ent ’ s vi ew cannot be corr ect , beca us e Sm i th had the bur den of pr oof and f ai l ed t o pre s entevi dence i n supportof thes e cons i der at i ons . So w e ca nnots ay the agr eementw as s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e. ¶24. L i kew i s e, w e do not f i nd the agr eement i s pr ocedur al l y uncons ci onabl e. Pr ocedur al
un con sci on abil i ty is est abli shed b y sho w ing “a lack of kno w l edg e, l ack o f vol un t ari ness, i ncons pi cuous pr i nt , the us e of co m ple x l egal i s t i c l anguage , di s par i ty i n s ophi s t i cat i on or b arg ainin g p o w er o f th e p arti es a n d /or a lac k o f op p o rtu n ity to stud y the c o n tr ac t and inq u ir e
a b o u t th e c o n tr a c t te rm s .” 25 ¶25. T he pr i ntof

the arbi tr at i on agr eementi s noti ncons pi cuous . T he arbi tr a t i on a gr e ement i s the exa cts ame f

onta s the r es tof

the contr act . I tappea r s atthe bott om of page one and the t op of pa ge tw o. I ti ncl udes a bol ded, under l i ned, and i t al i ci zed he adi ng s t at i ng “Sett l ementMcKenzie Check Advance of Ms., LLC v. Hardy , 866 So. 2d 446, 455 (Miss. 2004). 26 

### 12 b y A rb itratio n .” It a lso u se s b o ld fa c e p rin t w h e n its sta tes a ll d isp u tes “ sh a ll b e re so lv e d o n ly thr ough a rbi tr at i on and n o t thr o u g h li ti g a ti o n in fe d er a l, state o r loc a l cou rt. ” F u rth er, Sm i th w as r equi r ed t o i ni t i al an ac know l edgme nt, seti nt o the t extof the arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on, w hi ch s t at ed “[ b] oth t he appl i cant/ as s oci at e and the Em pl oyerR epr es ent at i ve i ni t i al bel ow t o s i gni f

y acc ept ance of the arbi tr at i on provi s i on. ” S o w e cannotconcl ude that th e p ro v isio n c o n tain s in c o n sp icu o u s p rin t. ¶ 2 6
. W h ile th e c lau se d o e s c o n tain so m e le g a lis tic la n g u a g e , it s k e y te rm s re latin g to
arbi tr at i on ar e unmi s t akabl e. T he cl aus e pr ovi des “t hat any empl oym ent - r el at ed di s put e, cont r over s y orcl ai m . . . s hal l be r es ol ved onl y thr ough arbi tr at i on and not t hrough l i t i gat i on i n f

ederal , s t at e or l ocal court ” and “ thatthe dec i s i on of the A rbi tr at orw i l l be FI N A L A N D B I N D I N G on al l part i es t o the di s put e. T her e i s no appeal on t he mer i t s of t he di s put e t o f

eder al , s t at e orl ocal court s . ” These s t at ement s pr ovi ded Sm i th s ubs t ant i al not i ce th a ts h e wa s a g r e e i n g t o f o r e g o a n y r i g h tt o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w. ¶27. W hat i s m or e, Sm i th f ai l ed t o pr od uce any evi dence that s he di dn’ t know w hats he si gn ed, did so i nv olunt ari l y, or l acked an op po rtun i ty t o revi ew and i nq uir e abo ut the term s. Sm i th admi t t ed thats he had s i gned the document
. A nd w hi l e s he t es t i f i ed thatno one had t ol d hert o r ead the documentorexpl ai ned i t s t erm s , s he conc eded thats he coul d have r ead it
. T h e law im p o ses a d u ty o n a c o n tra c ti n g p arty to re ad w h at he o r she sign s. F u rth er, 26 Sm i th neveras ked any que s t i ons aboutt he docum ents he s i gned. Si m pl y put , Sm i th bor e the bur den t o es t abl i s h t hes e f act s , and s he f

ai l ed t o do s o.

### 13

¶28. T hat l eave s onl y the di s par i ty i n s ophi s t i cat i on or bar gai ni ng pow er of the part i es as a pot ent i al f

act ori n f avorof pr ocedur al uncons ci onabi l i ty. E ven i f w e w er e t o ass um e that E xpr es s C heck pos s es s es an i nher entadvant age i n s ophi s t i cat i on and bar gai ni ng pow erover Sm i th, thati m bal ance di d notr es ul ti n oppre s s i ve t erm s . Sm i th si m pl y has f ai l ed t o pr oduce any evi dence of

pr ocedur al uncons ci onabi l i ty.

CO NC L US I ON ¶29. Sm i th f

ai l ed t o s at i s f

y he rbur den t o s how thatthe arbi trat i on agreem ent i s ei ther
s ubs t ant i vel y orpr ocedur al l y uncons ci onabl e, s o the tr i al j udg e p r oper l y compel l ed
a rb i tr a t i o n . W e a f

f i r m. ¶30. AF F I RM ED . RA ND OL P H, P . J . , L A MAR , P I E R C E A N D C OL E M AN , J J . , CO NC UR . KI NG , J ., D I S S E N T S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P IN IO N J O I N E D B Y W A L L E R , C .J ., AN D K I T CH E NS , J . CH AN DL E R, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . KI NG , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶31. T he m aj or i ty c oncl udes thatthe arbi tr at i on pr ovi si on i s nei t her subst anti vely nor p ro c e d u ra lly u n c o n sc io n a b le. B e c a u se I b e liev e th a t th e a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t is
unr eas onabl y one- s i ded and oppr es s i ve, I c oncl ude thati ti s s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e; th e re fo re , I r e s p e c tf

u lly d is s e n t. ¶32. U ncons ci onabi l i ty i s f ound w hen ther e exi s t s a n a bs ence of m eani ngf

ul choi ce f

or one par t y, t ogetherw i th contr actt erm s thatar e unr eas onabl y f avor abl e t o the otherpar ty. Covenant

Heal th & R ehab. of

P i cayune v. E s tate of

Moulds , 14 S o. 3d 69 5, 69 9 (M i ss. 2009) ( quot i ng C o rb in o n C o n tra c ts § 29. 4 ( 2009) )
. T his C ourthas r ecogni zed tw o t ypes
o f u n c o n s c io n a b ility : p ro c e d u ra l a n d s u b s ta n tiv e . I d. “Subs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty m ay

### 14

be pr oven by s how i ng the t erm s of the arbi tr at i on agr eementt o be oppr es s i ve. ” E as t For d, I nc. v. T aylor , 826 So. 2d 709, 714 ( M i s s . 2002)
. O ppr es s i ve t erm s m ay be thos e i n w hi ch
a one- s i ded agr eementexi s t s , “w her eby one pa r ty i s depr i ved of al l the bene f

i t s of t he agr eementorl ef

tw i thouta r emedy f

oranot herpar ty’ s nonper f or m ance or br eac h. ” Moulds , 14 So. 3d at699- 700 ( quot i ng B a n ko f In dia n a , N

a t’l A ss ’n . v. Ho lyf

ield , 476 F. Supp. 104, 1 1 0 (S .D . M iss . 1 9 7 9 )). “ O n e e x a m p le o f a o n e -sid e d a g re e m e n t is o n e th a t allo w s o n e p a rty t o go t o court , butr es tr i ct s the othert o arbi tr at i on. ” Moulds , 1 4 S o . 3 d a t 7 0 0
. ¶33. A contr act of adhes i on i s a contr act that the dom i nant party uni l at er al l y dr af t ed “a nd th e n p re se n ted o n a ‘ta k e -it-o r-le a v e -it’ ba sis to th e w e a k e r p a rty w h o h a s n o re a l o p p o rtu n ity t o bar gai n abouti t s t erm s . Such cont r act s ar e usua l l y pre par ed i n pri nt ed f or m . . . . ” E ast Ford , 826 So. 2d at716 ( quot i ng Ho lyf ield , 476 F. S upp. at110). H ow ever , a contr actof
a d h e s io n is n o t a u to m a tic a lly v o id d u e to u n c o n s c io n a b ility
. E ast Ford , 826 So. 2d at716. A n a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t w ith in a c o n tra c t o f ad h e sio n ren d e rs th e a rb itratio n “ a g re e m e n t .

. . u nc on s c i on a bl e o nl y w he r e the s tr on ge rp a r ty’ s t e r ms a r e u nn e go t i a bl e a nd ‘ the w eake r party i s pr event ed by m ar ketf act or s , t i m i ng orotherpr es s ur es f r om bei ng abl e t o contr act
w i th a notherpa r ty on m or e f avor abl e t erm s ort o r ef

r ai n f r om contr act i ng atal l
. ’ ” I d. at716 ( quot i ng E nter

gy Mis s . , I

nc. v. B urde tte G in Co. , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d 1 2 0 2 , 1 2 0 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 8 ))
. T he f actthatthe contr acti s a contr actof adhes i on m akes s ubs t a nt i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty eas i er t o pr ove, and can t hus re ndera “f aci al l y oppr es s i ve t erm pr es um pt i vel y i nval i d. ” Moulds , 1 4 S o . 3 d a t 7 0 1 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). ¶34. T he con t ract at i ssue i s unques t i onabl y a contr act of adhes i on. I t w as a pr epr i nt ed f or m dr af t ed by a bus i nes s , orpr es um abl y, by i t s l aw yer s , and w as pr es ent ed t o Sm i th on aFore xampl e, a n e ducat ed and s ki l l ed pr of es s i onal w i th mul t i pl e hi gh- pay i ng j ob 27 of f er s and comf

or t abl e s avi ngs m ay hav e t he r eas onabl e opt i on of r ef us i ng t o s i gn an a rb itratio n a g re e m e n t. Itis o b v io u s th a t an u n sk ill e d w o rk e r w ith n o s a v in g s w h o d e sp e ra tely needs f unds i s unl i kel y t o enj oy the s ame l uxury. 

### 15 take -i t- o r-l ea v e-itb asis to sign if sh e w an ted a job
. F u rth erm o re, un em p loy m en t r ates w ere hi gh, Sm i t h’s t est i m ony w as thatthe hi ghes tl evel of educa t i on s he compl et ed w as hi gh
sc h o o l, an d th e ev id e n c e ind ica tes tha t sh e is no t a w o rk e r w ith an y sp e c ializ e d sk ill s. It is cert ai nly r easona ble t o ass um e thata di spari ty in bargai ning po w er exi st s bet w een the part i es,
w i th E xpr es s C heck hol di ng the adva nt age. I ti s al s o rea s onabl e t o as s um e thatm arket f act or s , i
. e. , di f

f i cul ty f i ndi ng anotherj ob, pr event ed S m i th f r om contr act i ng w i th another p a rt y o r e m p lo y e r. See E n tergy Miss. , 7 2 6 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 0 7 (w h e re n o e v id e n c e w a s p u t fo rth
re g a rd in g th e c o m p a ra tiv e b u sin e ss sa v v y o f th e c o n tra c tin g p a rties , “ it is re a so n a b le to
a ss u m e th a t a la rg e c o m p a n y s u c h a s E n ter g y h o ld s th e a d v a n tag e in th a t re sp e c t”) . W h ile the tr i al courtfoun d thatSm i th “w as notobl i gat ed t o s i gn the contr actas s he coul d have
r ef us ed and s oughtempl oym entel s ew her e, ” thi s f i ndi ng ha s utt er l y no bas i s i n the r ecor d. W h ile s h e c o u ld h a v e o ste n sib ly “s o u g h t em p lo y m e n t else w h e re ,” th e re is no ev id e n c e as to how di f f i cul tobt ai ni ng s uch empl oym entm i ghthave be en orhow m uch s uch empl oym ent
m i ghthave pa i d, as compar ed t o E xpr es s Check. Such c ons i der at i ons a r e ce r t ai nl y r el evant t o a det erm i nat i on of

unc ons ci onabi l i ty, a nd the tr i al c our tcl ear l y di d notcons i derthem, but
r atherm ade a n uns uppor t ed f i ndi ng. 27 ¶35. I n addi t i on t o bei ng a contr actof adhes i on, the contr actati s s ue al l ow s E xpr es s C heck t o pur s ue j udi ci al r emedi es i n the f or m of i nj unct i ve r el i ef

f orSm i th’ s br eac h of

the contr act and f ur therm andat es thats he pay a t t orneys ’ f ees and cos t s i f

E xpr es s C heck ha s t o enf or ce

### 16

any of the pr ovi s i ons of

t he agr eement . Sm i th i s ent i r el y r el egat ed t o arbi tr at i on f orany and al l br eac hes of

the contr act , a nd nothi ng pr ovi des thats he m ay r ecove ratt orneys ’ f ees and
c o sts fo r h e r a ttem p ts to e n fo rc e th e c o n tra c t. A sim ilar p ro v isio n w a s d e e m e d su b sta n tiv e ly
uncons ci onabl e i n Pitt

s v. W at kins , 905 So. 2d 553, 555- 56 ( M i ss. 2 00 5). I n thatcas e, an in sp e c tio n a g re e m e n t allo w e d th e in sp e c to r to g o to c o u rt, b u t o n ly to re c o v e r fe e p a y m e n t,
w h ile o th e r c la im s w e re r e le g a te d to a rb itr a tio n . P itt s , 9 0 5 S o . 2 d at 5 5 6
. It a lso a llo w e d h im to re c o v e r a d m in istra tio n c o sts , atto rn e y s’ f e e s, a n d co sts o f liti g a tio n , w h ile th e o th e r p a rty
w a s re le g a te d s o le ly to a rb itr a tio n fo r a n y b re a c h o f t h e c o n tr a c t. I d. T h e C o u rt fo u n d th a t, b e c a u se th e a rb itratio n p ro v isio n a llo w e d th e in sp e c to r lim ited ju d icia l re m e d ies w h ile
r el egat i ng the otherparty ent i r el y t o arbi tr at i on, the arbi tr at i on cl aus e w as “cl ear l y one- s i ded, oppr es s i ve, and ther ef

or e, s ubs t ant i vel y uncons ci onabl e. ” I d. ¶36. R ece nt l y, i n Caplin E nter pr is es, I nc. v. A r r ington , thi s C our texami ned tw o di f f er ent
arbi tr at i on cl aus es f

ound w i thi n del ayed- depos i tag re ement s dr af t ed by Zi ppy C heck, an

“ o ld e r” o n e a n d a “ n e w e r” o n e . Caplin E nter pr is es, I nc. v. A rrin gton , 145 So. 3d 608 ( M i s s . 2014)
. T he “ol der ” ver s i on “pr ovi ded t hatZ i ppy C heck c oul d pur s ue ‘ al l ’ j udi ci al
re m e d ies to c o llec t o n the d e b t, i n c lu d in g a ttac h in g p ro p e rty a n d g a rn ish in g w a g e s, a s w e ll
as col l ect i ng ‘ att orney f

ees and otherdamages as s etf or th by the court , ’ butthe pl ai nt i f f s had t o br i ng a l l of

thei rc l ai m s t o a rbi tr at i on. ” I d. at611. T he “ne w er ” ver s i on “al l ow ed Zi ppy C heck t o purs ue j udi ci al r emedi es [ f ordef aul tof paymentobl i gat i ons ] , w hi l e r el egat i ng any and al l of the pl ai nt i f

f s ’ cl ai m s t o arbi tr at i on. ” I d. T hus , both arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i ons al l ow ed Z i ppy C heck t o pur s ue j udi ci al r emedi es f orthe l i m i t ed i s s ue of

the borr ow er ’ s def

aul tand
re le g a te d a ll o th e r d is p u te s to a rb itr a tio n . I d .Consequently, seven j ustices on this Court found the arb itrat ion provisi ons in Arrington 28 to b e unc on sci on ab le, wi th o nly tw o ju sti ces dis senting. L ikewi se, them oti on fo r re he aringin Arrington was denied by a vote of seven t o two. 

### 17 ¶37. T he C our t f

ound that both contr act s at i s s ue w er e contr act s of adh esi on , as “Zi ppy C heck dr af

t ed [ them] uni l at er al l y and pr es ent ed [ them] t o i t s cus t om er s on a t ake- i t - or - l eave i tbas i s . ” I

d. a t 6 1 5 . T h e C o u rt d e e m e d b o th th e a rb itr a tio n c la u s e s u n c o n s c io n a b le
. I d. at 6 1 6 -17
. Itd eterm ined tha t th e “o lder” c laus e w as “o p p ressive b ec au se itforc ed the p lai n ti ffs t o arbi trat e t heircl ai m s w hil e perm i t t i ng Z i pp y C heck to pu rs ue rem edies for the p l ai nti ff s’ br eac h i n cour t . A ddi t i onal l y, t he contr actf oi s t ed upon the pl ai nt i f

f s Z i ppy C heck’ s cos tof hi r i ng an att orney f

orcol l ect i on, i ncl udi ng ‘ otherdamages ’ or der ed by t he court . ” I d. at616. A s t o the “ne w er ” arbi tr at i on pr ovi s i on thatdi d notl i m i tthe borr ow er ’ s l i abi l i ty orpr ovi de th a t th e b o rro w e r p a y Z ip p y C h e c k ’s a tto rn e y s’ f e e s, b u t sim p ly a llo w e d Z ip p y C h e c k to p u rsu e ju d icia l re m e d ies fo r d e fa u lt w h ile re leg a tin g a ll o th e r d is p u tes to a rb itratio n , this C o u rt fo u n d th a t itw a s “ c lea rly o p p re ss iv e a n d su b sta n tiv e ly u n c o n sc io n a b le p u rsu a n t to P itt s . ” I d. at617. T he C our tnot ed how des per at e the pl ai nti ff s m us thave be en f

or im m e d iate fu n d s, a n d th a t th e p re p rin ted c o n tra c ts w e re o ffe re d o n a tak e -it-o r-le a v e -it b a sis and w er e contr act s of

adhes i on, concl udi ng that“[ w ] hi l e an arbi tr at i on agr eementneed not
co n tai n iden ti ca l ob li g ati o n s, u n d er the fac ts of this case , the a rbitrati o n ag ree m en ts w ere
u n re a s o n a b ly fa v o ra b le to Z ip p y C h e c k , o p p re s s iv e , u n c o n s c io n a b le , a n d u n e n fo rc e a b le .” I d. ¶38
. T h e a rbit rati o n p ro v isio n a t issu e is o n e-side d an d o p p ressive an d is there fore
s ub s t a nt i ve l y u nc on s c i on a bl e , a s i ti s e ve n mor e on e - s i de d tha n the “ ne w e r ” a rbi tr a t i on agr eementi n A r r ington . It a llo w s E x p re ss C h e c k to u se ju d icia l re m e d ies fo r v irtu a lly a ll 28

### 18

of the br eac hes of

the contr actt hatSm i th conce i vabl y coul d acc om pl i s h, w hi l e al s o al l ow i ng E xpr es s C heck t o re coverfe es i tm ay i ncurforany enf or cementof

contr actpr ovi s i ons . Y et i tr es tr i ct s Sm i th t o arbi tr at i on f oral l c l ai m s a gai ns tExpr es s Check a nd f ai l s t o pr ovi de that
s he may r ecove rf

ees i ncurr ed w hi l e enf

or ci ng the agr eement . I ti s re as onabl e t o as s um e that S m ith w a s s o d e sp e ra te fo r a jo b th a t sh e sig n e d a n u n re a so n a b ly u n fa v o ra b le a g re e m e n t to
o b ta in m u c h -n e e d e d e m p lo y m e n t. See id. a t 6 1 7 . M o re o v e r, th e c o n tra c t a t iss u e is c lea rly a contr actof

adhes i on, r ender i ng s ubs t ant i ve uncons ci onabi l i ty eas i ert o pr ove. U ndert he f act s of thi s cas e, the arbi tr at i on agr eementw as unr eas onabl y f avor able t o E xpr es s C heck and oppr es s i ve, and i s t hus uncons ci onabl e and unenf or cea bl e. I w oul d ther ef or e r ever s e the tr i al c our t ’ s or derc om pel l i ng a rbi tr at i on a nd r emand the cas e f orf ur therpr ocee di ngs i n t he trial c o u rt. W AL L E R, C. J . , AN D K I T CH E NS , J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON
.