The court ruled that failure to specify the rules under which the arbitration agreement would be conducted did not invalidate the agreement. (Parties failed to fill in blank in contract, thereby failing to designate name of organization whose rules would control). The court found that Chapter 682 had sufficient "gap filler" provisions so that such designation was not material or necessary to the agreement. In addition, the court rejected the argument that there was any 'procedural unconscionability' in this transaction involving sophisticated business entities, with no showing of any disparity between the parties' education, age or competency.

* * *

For more information on this topic, you may send an email to Dorothy Venable DiFiore at .