Andersons, Inc. v. Horton Farms, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that farmer failed to show The Andersons was the only grain elevator offering HTA contracts, failed to show the HTA contract terms were non- negotiable, and failed to show that the arbitral process was oppressive
• rejecting unconscionability arguments in a NGFA arbitration clause case in which the grain seller’s fee was $1500 and the award was $271,030.44
• granting defendants summary judgement when contracts were facially forward contracts, despite allegations that they could be infinitely rolled
• noting a similar warning as support for its holding that there was no procedural unconscionability
• rejecting a procedural unconscionability argument, in part, because “Horton Farms has failed to present evidence that it searched for other alternatives and that there were none”
• rejecting procedural and substantive uneonscionability arguments against a contract calling for NGFA arbitration, and noting “the NGFA rules provide that the arbitrators may not themselves have a commercial interest in a particular dispute”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).