Opinion ID: 51139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Unconscionability and Lack of Mutuality

Text: Finally, Davis asserts that the arbitration provision of the Agreement is unconscionable and lacks mutuality, and is therefore unenforceable. The party opposing arbitration bears the burden of showing that the arbitration provision is unconscionable. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d 749, 756 (Tex. 2001). The test for unconscionability assesses whether, in light of the parties’ general commercial background and needs, the provision is so 12 unilateral as to have been unconscionable at the time of formation. Id. at 757. The objective is to prevent oppression and unfair surprise, not to disturb the allocation of risks stemming from one party’s superior bargaining position. Id. As to the reasons why the Agreement’s arbitration provision is unconscionable, Davis points to the “employment status of the drivers [and] the ambiguous and unilateral nature of the arbitration clause.” First, we have already addressed the issue of ambiguity and held that Davis did not show ambiguity in the arbitration provision. Second, Davis does not explain how one’s status as an employee as opposed to an independent contractor would change the unconscionability analysis. Lastly, the mere existence of unequal bargaining power does not make an arbitration clause unconscionable, nor does the fact that limited exceptions exist which permit one party to seek judicial remedies instead of submitting to arbitration. See id. at 757-58 (holding that an arbitration clause that permitted the stronger party to litigate certain claims was not unconscionable). Thus, Davis has failed to satisfy his burden of showing unconscionability. Lack of mutuality generally refers to the concept of consideration. See Fed. Sign v. Tex. S. Univ., 951 S.W.2d 401, 408 (Tex. 1997) (“A contract must be based upon a valid consideration, in other words, mutuality of obligation.”), superseded by statute on other grounds, TEX. GOV’T CODE §§ 2260.001-.108, as recognized in 13 Gen. Servs. Comm’n v. Little-Tex Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591, 593 (Tex. 2001). Consideration is comprised of the “benefits and detriments to the contracting parties.” Id. at 409. “The detriments must induce the parties to make the promises and the promises must induce the parties to incur the detriments.” Id. In the present case, Davis did not point to any evidence of a lack of mutuality of obligations in the Agreement.4 Therefore, we reject Davis’s contention that the Agreement lacked mutuality.