Robert S. Eaton v. CMH Homes, Inc., and Southern Energy Homes, Inc., and Henry Concrete, LLC

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an agreement is unconscionable that allows one party to unilaterally divest itself of the obligation to arbitrate
• noting that generally, courts “will give effect to a severability clause when the clause being severed is not a necessary part of the contract”
• explaining that, in determining unconscionability, Missouri courts look to “both the procedural and substantive aspects of a contract to determine whether, considered together, they make the agreement or provision in question unconscionable”
• noting “the dealer [in Greene] could foreclose the buyer’s right to review of the provisional repossession simply by failing to file for arbitration”
• “Arbitration agreements are tested through a lens of ordinary state law principles that govern contracts.”
• “[T]he lack of mutuality as to the arbitration agreement does not itself invalidate that arbitration agreement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).