Opinion ID: 2543212
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conception's Holding

Text: Despite the majority's claims to the contrary, Concepcion is not difficult to understand or apply. It provides that an agreement to arbitrate may be invalidated by generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or unconscionability, but not by defenses that apply only to arbitration or that derive their meaning from the fact that an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. Concepcion, 131 S.Ct. at 1746. Concepcion instructs us to look to state law principles when deciding if an agreement to arbitrate may be unenforceable because it is unconscionable. Id. Missouri state law principles of unconscionability apply, unless those principles apply only to agreements to arbitrate or they derive meaning just because an agreement to arbitrate is at issue. While Justice Thomas wrote separately in Concepcion, he expressly concurred in the majority opinion and made it the controlling statement of law. [4] Justice Thomas, however, individually advocated that only issues related to the making of the agreement should be grounds for revocation of an agreement to arbitrate. Id. at 1754 (Thomas, J., concurring) (reasoning that an agreement to arbitrate should be enforced unless a defense concerning the formation of the agreement applies, such as fraud, duress or mutual mistake). The majority of this Court uses Justice Thomas' concurrence to combine the issues of substantive and procedural unconscionability and do away with the requirement that the contract be procedurally unconscionable. The majority's reliance on the concurrence is misplaced, though, as Justice Thomas argued that a deficiency in the formation of the contract must exist to find the agreement unconscionable. Traditional procedural unconscionability issues are those that reflect problems in the formation of the contract. [5] The majority fails to establish that Brewer has proven a defense regarding the formation of the agreement, thereby failing to meet Justice Thomas' suggested test, the Concepcion majority's test and the requirements of unconscionability under Missouri law.