law-public-policy-grounds | void order or judgment | void or voidable contract | void as against public policy
Parties have the right to contract as they see fit as long as their agreement does not violate the law or
public policy. Id. at 129. In the arbitration context, arbitration clauses generally do not require mutuality of
obligation so long as adequate consideration supports the underlying contract. In re FirstMerit Bank, N.A.,
52 S.W.3d 749, 757 (Tex. 2001).
MNI has not made any claim that either the Master Agreement or Restructuring Agreement were not
supported by adequate consideration. However, we must also decide if the forum-selection clause was “so
one-sided that it is unconscionable under the circumstances when the parties made the contract.” In re Palm
Harbor Homes, 195 S.W.3d at 678. As previously discussed, the circumstances under which the contracts
were made do not show that the clause is so one-sided as to be unconscionable. Further, even if we
assume that the agreement constituted a contract of adhesion, as MNI contends, we have held on numerous
occasions that adhesion contracts are not per se unconscionable or void. Id.; In re AdvancePCS Health L.P.,
172 S.W.3d 603, 608 (Tex. 2005); In re Oakwood Mobile Homes, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 571, 574 (Tex. 1999).
Source: In re Lyon Financial Services, Inc., No. 07-0486, 257 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. June 20, 2008)(per curiam)
(orig. proc.) (mandamus, forum selection clause, motion to dismiss improperly denied)
Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc. No. 06-0979 (Tex. Nov. 21, 2008) (Brister)(choice of
law when contract not express, enforceability of Rule 11 agreement, indemnity law and public policy of forum
state vs. foreign state)