Opinion ID: 2543212
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Finding some terms substantively unconscionable interferes with the parties' right to contract for those terms

Text: Courts should not interfere with a party's right to contract so long as the contract is not otherwise void. Malan Realty Investors, Inc. v. Harris, 953 S.W.2d 624, 627 (Mo. banc 1997). When the terms of a contract are clear, the court is bound to enforce the terms as written. Id. at 626-27. There is no requirement in Missouri that contract terms be an exchange of reciprocal promises. See Vincent, 194 S.W.3d at 859, quoting Harris v. Green Tree Financial Corp., 183 F.3d 173, 181 (3d Cir.1999). The majority attacks many of the contract terms, calling them unconscionable and one-sided. Of those terms, though, it is disingenuous to fault the title company for the need to use the judicial process to repossess vehicles that secure loans. [8] This is not evidence of a contract containing one-sided terms to benefit the title company; arbitration simply cannot provide for a secured creditors' replevin right. [9] See also Marmet, 565 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. at 1202-03 (noting that the nursing home arbitration agreement required parties to arbitrate all disputes except claims by the defendant to collect late payments owed by the patient). The majority also concludes that the provisions retaining the title company's right to seek attorneys' fees and establishing the high interest rate are substantively unconscionable. However, this ignores the fact that Brewer could have gone to at least 20 different companieswhich she had researched and listedto find better terms. The majority compares these provisions with ones from the contract the Supreme Court enforced in Concepcion, noting that in that case, AT & T agreed to waive the right to attorneys' fees and to shoulder the costs of arbitration. However, the Supreme Court did not state that these consumer-favorable provisions are required for an agreement to arbitrate to be found conscionable. Furthermore, the parties are not required to make promises equal in consideration as long as the contract is supported by consideration.