law-public-policy-grounds | void order or judgment | void or voidable contract | void as against public

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).
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)