Opinion ID: 1871069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Netco and Pro Net

Text: Appellants contend that Netco is bound to arbitrate under the arbitration clause in Pro Net's Terms and Conditions because the Schmitzes signed and submitted a Pro Net application. To the contrary, Netco contends that it never became a member of Pro Net because Pro Net rejected Netco's membership application after Charlie Schmitz, Netco's president, altered the terms of the application. Whether the altered membership application constituted a counter-offer, and whether that counter-offer was then accepted by Pro Net, is problematic both from a factual and legal standpoint. Without deciding these questions, however, this Court holds as a matter of law that Netco was otherwise estopped from denying membership in Pro Net; thus, it is bound to arbitrate under the Pro Net arbitration clause. From a close review of the record, it is clear that Netco received benefits of Pro Net membership. A party may be estopped from questioning the existence, validity and effect of a contract by accepting the benefits of that contract. Dunn, 112 S.W.3d at 437. This is because of the equitable principle that a party should not be allowed to assume the inconsistent position of affirming a contract in part by accepting or claiming its benefits, and disaffirming it in part by repudiating or avoiding its obligations, or burdens. Dubail v. Medical West Bldg. Corp., 372 S.W.2d 128, 132 (Mo.1963). By the Schmitzes' own admission, Global's records established that Netco continued to order BSMs well into 1999 and that it ordered more than 54,000 BSMs through Global during that time. Because Netco indisputably purchased BSMs through Global rather than Pro Net, Netco contends that these purchases were not a benefit of Pro Net membership and, further, that anyone could purchase from Global, regardless of Pro Net membership. However, this argument is refuted in Netco's petition, which alleged that Netco's ability to purchase BSMs through Global was a benefit of Pro Net membership. In fact, one of Netco's primary claims is that it was pressured to join Pro Net because it would otherwise be prohibited from purchasing BSMs through Global. According to Netco, distributors who pulled out of Pro Net were cut off by Global and Pro Net's president instructed Global not to supply BSMs to distributors who abandoned Pro Net. Netco also alleges that because of defendants' conspiracy, a distributor either purchased his BSMs from Defendants or he was done. Simply stated, respondents' suggestion on appeal that anyone could purchase through Global is wholly irreconcilable with the allegations in the petition. By purchasing BSMs through Global and by conceding that those purchases were a benefit from Pro Net membership, Netco is estopped to deny that it is bound by the terms of Pro Net membership.