Supreme Court of South Carolina· 7/6/2016

Smith v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

Citations

417 S.C. 42
790 S.E.2d 1
2016 S.C. LEXIS 155

How courts have described this case

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

holding the question of whether an arbitration provision is unconscionable is for the court to decide
holding an arbitration agreement was not merely a standalone provision but was instead embedded in multiple contract terms, including ones dealing with a limited home warranty
finding arbitration provision unconscionable and unenforceable where relief was left \to the whim of D.R. Horton while simultaneously allowing no monetary recuperation\ when repairs were inadequate
explaining adhesion contracts are \standard form contracts offered on a take-it or leave-it basis with terms that are not negotiable\ (internal alteration marks omitted) (citation omitted)
in which a majority of the court found the arbitration agreement itself broadly encompassed the entirety of the \Warranties and Dispute Resolution\ section of the home purchase agreement

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Toal, Beatty, Hearn, Kittredge, Pleicones

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

28 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Smith v. D.R. Horton, Inc.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.