Although we have serious doubts about whether the agreement is procedurally unconscionable as well, we do not decide this issue because the agreement’s substantive unconscionability alone renders it invalid under Washington law. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is
Unconscionability and Other Defenses
The case you are about to read examines the intersection of arbitration and contract law, as well as public policy considerations. As you read the opinion, consider the following questions:
1. What defenses to enforcement does the court identify?
2. To what extent does the court consider public policy? Was that an important part of the decision?
3. Why did the court overrule the Fourth District’s decision?
4. Under what circumstances do you think the court would have agreed with the Fourth District?
GLOBAL TRAVEL MARKETING, INC. VS. MARK R. SHEA
Supreme Court of Florida
908 So. 2d 392; 2005 Fla. 1454; 30 Fla. L. Weekly S 511
July 7, 2005, Decided
OPINION: PARIENTE, C.J.
We have for review a decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in which the court certified a question of great public importance:
Whether a parent’s agreement in a commercial travel contract to binding arbitration on behalf of a minor child with respect to prospective tort claims arising in the course of such travel is enforceable as to the minor.
For the reasons that follow, we determine that the arbitration provision in this commercial travel contract is not unconscionable, in violation of any statutory prohibition, or void as against public policy. Because the mother in this case had authority to enter into this contract on behalf of her minor child, the arbitration
provision is valid and enforceable.