Opinion ID: 1678650
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Reaves's Contract

Text: The foregoing analysis as to Branch's case would seem to require a similar result in Reaves's case. Unlike Branch, however, Reaves cannot demonstrate that she was unable to acquire goods or services without considerable expenditure of time and resources. This is so because Reaves obtained her last loan from American General on November 2, 1995. At that time, finance companies in her geographical location requiring agreements to arbitrate were still a distinct minority. [5] Thus, for all that appears in the record, one must conclude that she couldwith a minimum of efforthave acquired financing without agreeing to arbitrate her claims. In fact, she testified that she had borrowed money from Citizens Bank in Greensboro on two occasions since 1995 and that neither transaction involved an arbitration agreement. Moreover, she testified that, in seeking the loan of November 2, 1995, she contacted no entity other than American General. In other words, she did not shop around for a loan that did not involve an agreement to arbitrate. She testified that she asked no questions about the arbitration provisions in the Note and Security Agreement. Indeed, she testified that she did not read the Note and Security Agreement. Consequently, she has not demonstrated that she had no meaningful choice; therefore, the second Layne v. Garner factor is not satisfied in her case. For these reasons, we conclude that the trial court erred in holding that Reaves's arbitration agreement was unconscionable. The order in case 1990888 is, therefore, reversed, and that case is remanded.