Opinion ID: 2156289
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: please read this document carefully!

Text: IT CONTAINS VERY IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS, AS WELL AS LIMITATIONS AND EXCLUSIONS THAT MAY APPLY TO YOU. THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS A DISPUTE RESOLUTION CLAUSE [¶ 4] The two provisions most central to this dispute are the reservation clause in the preamble to the agreement, which reserves to Dell the unilateral right to change the agreement, and an arbitration clause requiring any claim against Dell to be submitted to binding arbitration. The reservation clause states: These terms and conditions are subject to change without prior written notice at any time, in Dell's sole discretion. The arbitration clause provides: 13. Binding Arbitration. ANY CLAIM ... AGAINST DELL, its agents, employees, successors, assigns or affiliates (collectively for purposes of this paragraph, Dell) arising from or relating to this Agreement, its interpretation, or the breach, termination or validity thereof, the relationships which result from this Agreement (including, to the full extent permitted by applicable law, relationships with third parties who are not signatories to this Agreement), Dell's advertising, or any related purchase SHALL BE RESOLVED EXCLUSIVELY AND FINALLY BY BINDING ARBITRATION ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM (NAF) .... The arbitration will be limited solely to the dispute or controversy between Customer and Dell. The agreement also contains a choice of law provision that establishes that sales subject to the agreement are governed by the laws of Texas. [¶ 5] In June 2003, Stenzel and Gerber filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court that challenged Dell's collection of sales tax on service contracts and shipping charges because Maine does not impose a sales tax on those costs. 36 M.R.S.A. §§ 1752(14)(B)(4), (14)(B)(7), 1811 (Supp.2004). Dell moved to dismiss the complaint in favor of arbitration pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-307 (1999 & Supp.2004), or, in the alternative, the Maine Uniform Arbitration Act, 14 M.R.S.A. §§ 5927-5949 (2003). Having found the arbitration clause to be neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, the trial court dismissed the complaint in favor of arbitration. This appeal followed.