holding that a court must decide whether an "arbitration clause lacks mutuality of obligation, is unconscionable, and violates public policy" because these issues "go to the making of the arbitration agreement itself
Summary of this case from Gipson v. Cross Country BankNo. 98-679.
January 11, 1999, OCTOBER TERM, 1998.
C.A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 145 F. 3d 320.
holding that a court must decide whether an "arbitration clause lacks mutuality of obligation, is unconscionable, and violates public policy" because these issues "go to the making of the arbitration agreement itself
Summary of this case from Gipson v. Cross Country Bankholding that a court must decide whether an "arbitration clause lacks mutuality of obligation, is unconscionable, and violates public policy" because these issues "go to the making of the arbitration agreement itself"
Summary of this case from Billups v. Bankfirstholding that a court must decide whether an "arbitration clause lacks mutuality of obligation, is unconscionable, and violates public policy" because these issues "go to the making of the arbitration agreement itself"
Summary of this case from Taylor v. Citibank USA, N.A.Full title:METRO FORD TRUCK SALES, INC. v. FORD MOTOR CO
Court:U.S.
Date published: Jan 11, 1999
. . As an exercise of the Congress' treaty power and as federal law, "[t]he Convention must be enforced…
Klein Co. Futures v. Bd. of Trade of the City of N.Yin v. Lind-Waldock Co., 738 F.2d 179 (7th Cir. 1984)..............................................15, 25, 29…