CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we hold that an arbitration agreement incorporated into a commercial travel contract is enforceable against the minor or minor’s estate in a tort action arising from the contract. We emphasize that we decide only the narrow issue presented by the certified question. Because the validity of the release of liability in the travel contract in this case is not before us, we express no opinion whether the release is enforceable or whether its enforceability should be decided by the trial court or by arbitration. Accordingly, we answer the certified question in the affirmative, quash the decision of the Fourth District, and remand for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Common Law “Mirror Image Rule”
The Poel case is one of the many cases that discusses the common law’s “mirror image rule.” While reading the case, consider the following questions:
1. Do you believe there was a meeting of the minds-and, if so, to what extent?
2. Apply the contract rule you learned from Maddox to this case (rule reprinted below). Upon what elements did the parties fall short?
“To constitute a contract, there must be an offer by one party and acceptance by the other party…