No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Tennessee Supreme Court reversed lower courts' decisions and held that the non-mutual arbitration provision in the adhesion contract was not unconscionable, allowing the sellers' motion to compel arbitration to proceed.
In this appeal, we are asked to overrule established precedent regarding the circumstances under which an arbitration provision in an adhesive consumer contract is rendered unconscionable and unenforceable based on non-mutual remedies, i.e., mandating arbitration for the consumer but reserving a judicial forum for the merchant. This case involves an adhesion contract for the sale of a manufactured home. The contract includes an arbitration provision under which the sellers retain the right to seek relief in a judicial forum for limited purposes. After the buyer took possession of the home, he filed a lawsuit against the sellers for breach of contract, and the sellers filed a motion to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion to compel. In reliance on this Court's decision in Taylor v. Butler, 142 S.W.3d 277 (Tenn. 2004), the trial court held that the non-mutuality of remedies in the arbitration provision rendered it unconscionable and invalid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, also relying on Taylor. We granted permission to appeal to address whether the ruling in Taylor is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act under the reasoning in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), and to address whether Taylor should be overruled or modified in light of the current majority view in other jurisdictions on the validity of arbitration contracts that include non-mutual remedies. We hold that Taylor did not adopt a per se rule that any degree of non-mutuality of remedies in an arbitration provision in an adhesion contract renders the provision unconscionable and unenforceable. Consequently, the ruling in Taylor is not preempted by federal law. In addition, after reviewing the law in other jurisdictions, we decline to overrule or modify the ruling in Taylor. Applying Taylor to the contract in this case, we conclude that the sellers' retention of a judicial forum for limited purposes does not render the arbitration agreement unconscionable. Accordingl
What Happened
Richard Berent bought a manufactured home from CMH Homes, Inc. and signed a contract that included an arbitration clause. This clause required Berent to settle any disputes through arbitration (private dispute resolution) rather than going to court. However, the contract was one-sided: while Berent had to use arbitration, CMH Homes could still take him to court if needed. When a dispute arose, Berent argued this unfair arrangement made the contract invalid and that he should be allowed to sue in regular court instead.
What the Court Decided
The Tennessee Supreme Court sided with CMH Homes. The court ruled that even though the arbitration clause was one-sided, it was still valid and enforceable. The court reversed earlier decisions that had favored Berent and ordered that his dispute must go through arbitration as the contract required.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling reinforces that companies can include one-sided arbitration clauses in contracts, even when they seem unfair. Workers and consumers should carefully read contracts before signing, as they may be giving up their right to sue in court while the company keeps that option for themselves.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Appellant Derinda Carr challenges the trial court's finding her neck injury did not arise primarily "out of and in the course and scope of' her employment. The appeal has been referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Appeals Panel for a hearing and a report of findings of fact and conclusions…
Bethany Shelton ("Employee") filed a petition for benefit determination against Hobbs Enterprises, LLC ("Employer") alleging an injury to her right shoulder suffered in a work- related accident on August 26, 2017. She sought temporary total, permanent partial, and continued medical benefits.…
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.