Source: https://paydayloanindustryblog.com/tag/payday-loans-kentucky/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:27:12+00:00

Document:
A truly amazing payday loan story! We often learn of some really crazy payday loan incident stories but this one is NUTS! What were these payday loan employees thinking? Originally I thought perhaps the CRL might have made this one up but, NO, this story is true! Your thoughts?
RENDERED: JUNE 19, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
CAPERTON AND STUMBO, JUDGES; BUCKINGHAM,1 SENIOR JUDGE.
agreements always included an identical arbitration provision.
Watkins to leave even though he repeatedly asked to do so.
Watkins to leave the premises even if he called the police.
attorney’s fees, compensatory damages, costs, and punitive damages.
marked Page 2 of 2.
claims that it exempts from arbitration are those brought in small claims court.
governing contract law.” Abner, 260 S.W.3d at 353.
Servicing Corp. v. Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335, 341 (Ky. App. 2001) (citing Cline v.
honest man would accept, on the other.
Id. at 341-42 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis supplied).
been contemplated by the parties as subject to arbitration.
bargain in an extreme or surprising way.
Watkins in an extreme or surprising fashion.
for the commission of an intentional tort?
right to sue for intentional tort claims.” Solis v. Evins, 951 S.W.2d 44, 51 (Tex.
F.3d 20, 28 (2nd Cir. 1995) (citation and quotations marks omitted).
raised by contracts of adhesion.
Conseco, 47 S.W.3d at 343 n.22 (citations omitted).
a financial transaction of considerable magnitude.” Buck Run Baptist Church, Inc.
unconscionable. This point was made very effectively in an opinion of the U.S.
any vestige of old rules disfavoring arbitration.
Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan, 514 U.S. 938, 943, 115 S.Ct.
genuinely agreed to that device.
Stone v. Doerge, 328 F.3d 343, 345 (7th Cir. 2003).
Healthcare West, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 892, 902 (Cal.Ct.App. 2008).
Fountain Finance, Inc. v. Hines, 788 So.2d 155, 158 (Ala. 2000) (citation omitted).
See also Coors Brewing Co. v. Molson Breweries, 51 F.3d 1511, 1516 (10th Cir.
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. See Smith v. Steinkamp, 318 F.3d 775 (7th Cir.
unable to suggest a limiting principle.
Smith, 318 F.3d at 777.
of the three cases cited by the trial court (Conseco Finance Servicing Corp. v.
Wilder, 47 S.W.3d 335 (Ky. App. 2001), Hill v. Hilliard, 945 S.W.2d 948 (Ky.
directly from the underlying contract is unconscionable.
that the opinion was irrelevant to the trial court’s analysis in this case.
foreseen by Watkins when he signed that agreement.
denying the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.