ÿWPCD aâÊ5‘^tUþ_,Û°‡žÏ=ñaŒXs‘xº¤ŠÑ•«¹ ¡G K`ç¨jã¥[ã¬e‹²¥KøKºæ1 žàš Dòß×^3æ—K¨ ›³æl²Ì­±½ÐvÖ!j} ÞÝæh²vªáëžM„oâÄ‘êó„‹~2®Øú úœÜZµ ÃçZ¹Ã”+[@Úyè9*dæ6¾´uU˜Ô_ÒÕ²©²A´GVÀö¢T ìøXʆÞ~>žc€ò° ôíFG^@Úï#¢#D÷5ŒešŠðÍ’ð¬Å}oÙ¯ªŸ·¿12ŠJ]ɲ©Äg§¿“ŒQe¼*Ô-Æœ_¤ê·±>ãò›9îa‡¡ù2"ަè&;  :Š3Žl­#G^0k¿ÖH5¯µÏ6„à¢*TKDöŸ?|8¦´S}íáJ©È:ÑÞ¸'™AŒ-?Pˆ? %ÚéH¾p¨ ÔÅ?9Åz§gaq§ܲ‰½“\‘ÍoçqÔ·wíš/†,à;VÆ1î–Ê3ŠK·¦‡ò¦þk—°ÊÕ¦.+‡ëæ³ø@PŸm ¥÷p¹ìuðó~NJô?Ʋ}úT°2Þ:êjj½oiÆ„bmŠšêú’Þj€U¦³†—·c'?¬ŒâÏ…Sb %\^ b 0ˆnUNöwD4H\ zkÒå· m¹ Ð #ÁØ Æ™ Æ_ Æ% Æë U N±Nÿò 0DóE777777777777777777777777b999999999999999999999999999999999999 0ëAAAA B,, 0¤I D3í D-  0KMM AS˜Æë 0¤± 0DU A«™»Ä£;)â (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularl;)  3|x ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ ˜HP LaserJet 8000 Series PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular èÝ ƒR¸$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôÓp ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ô€€€€€€The€parties€do€not€contend€that€Ohio€law€is€different€from€Tennessee€law€as€applicable€to€this€case.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù-(|G2¸$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôrÀò»»Ô d(|3Eä$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Eä$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€»»d d 8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Ô»»d dÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼r»»»ÔÑ8€sTXXdê»»d 8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡î|9rÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@WW$ìàAT€KNOXVILLEÔ#†¼r»îî|9 #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€2000€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X&´X»¼rÔÌÔ#†¼r»XX&´ð#Ôò òWILSON€PHARMACY,€INC.,€v.€GENERAL€COMPUTER€CORPORATIONó óÐ úJ ÐÔ‡X&´X»¼rÔÌÌà@@½½ìàò ò€Appeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Washington€CountyÐ ê : Ðà@@øøìàNo.€32602€€Thomas€J.€Ô_ÔSeeleyÔ_Ô,€Jr.,€JudgeÐ Ö & ÐÌÌFILED€SEPTEMBER€21,€2000Ð šê  Ðà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<…` AßÐ †Ö  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€E2000„00733„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CVÐ Ñ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<X` AßÐ Y© Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThe€origin€of€this€appeal€is€a€complaint€filed€by€Plaintiff€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€against€DefendantÐ T¤ ÐGeneral€Computer€Corporation,€seeking€damages€for€allegedly€furnishing€defective€computerÐ @ Ðhardware€and€software€programs€pursuant€to€contracts€entered€into€between€the€parties.€€The€TrialÐ ,| ÐCourt€found€that€the€provision€providing€suit€must€be€brought€within€one€year€after€accrual€of€theÐ h Ðaction€barred€Wilson€Pharmacyððs€claim.€€Wilson€Pharmacy€appeals,€contending€the€contract€theyÐ T Ðentered€into€was€one€of€adhesion,€rendering€the€contract€limitation€period€ineffective.€€We€affirm.€Ð ð@ ÐÓÅÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed€andÐ È ÐRemandedÐ ´ Ðó óÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼r»àX&´„#ÔÔ‡X&´X.¼rÔHouston€M.€Ô_ÔGoddardÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔP.J.Ô_Ôóó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHerschel€P.€Franksóó€andÐ ŒÜ ÐòòD.€Michael€Ô_ÔSwineyÔ_Ôóó,€JJ.€joined.Ð xÈ ÐÌÔ_ÔOlenÔ_Ô€G.€Haynes,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€Appellant€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.Ð P   ÐÌRonald€S.€Range,€Jr.,€and€Matthew€D.€Davison,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee,€for€Appellee€GeneralÐ ("x! ÐComputer€CorporationÐ #d" ÐÌÓ2ÓÔ#†¼r»XX&´a#Ôà @ àOPINIONÐ ì$< $ ÐÓ  ÓÌÌà  àà ` àÔ€X&´X»¼rÔThe€origin€of€this€appeal€is€a€complaint€filed€by€Plaintiff€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,Ð "(r#' Ðagainst€Defendant,€General€Computer€Corporation,€now€known€as€Ô_ÔMedEÔ_Ô€America€of€Ohio,€Inc.€Ð )^$( ÐAs€grounds€for€its€complaint€Wilson€Pharmacy€alleges€the€following:Ð ú)J%) ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Ò1.€€Plaintiff€is€a€Tennessee€corporation.€€Its€principal€place€of€business€isÐ Ò+"'+ Ðlocated€at€525€North€State€of€Franklin€Road,€Johnson€City,€Tennessee.Ð ¾,(, ÐÐ ª-ú(-ý ÐÔ_Ô2.€€The€Defendant,€General€Computer€Corporation,€is€a€foreign€corporationÐ ° Ðwith€offices€at€2045€Midway€Drive,€Twinsburg,€Ohio.Ð œì ÐÌ3.€€The€Defendant,€MedE€America,€is€a€foreign€corporation€with€offices€at€90Ð tÄ ÐMerrick€Avenue,€Suite€501,€East€Meadow,€New€York.€€MedE€America€is€theÐ `° Ðparent€corporation€of€the€Defendant,€General€Computer€Corporation.Ð L œ ÐÌ4.€€On€or€about€the€17òòthóó€day€of€January,€1995,€and€thereafter,€Plaintiff€enteredÐ $ t Ðinto€agreements€with€General€Computer€Corporation€under€the€terms€of€whichÐ  ` Ðit€was€represented€to€the€Plaintiff€that€General€Computer€Corporation€wouldÐ ü L  Ðsupply€computer€hardware€and€a€software€program€that€would€support€theÐ è 8  Ðneeds€of€Wilson€Pharmacyððs€retail€and€institutional€operations.Ð Ô$  ÐÌ5.€€The€program€provided€by€the€Defendant,€General€Computer€Corporation,Ð ¬ü  Ðwas€unable€to€perform€according€to€the€published€and€verbal€representations€ofÐ ˜è  ÐGeneral€computer€Corporation.€€As€a€consequence,€the€entire€system€had€to€beÐ „Ô  Ðreplaced€by€the€Plaintiff€at€considerable€expense.Ð pÀ ÐÌ6.€€The€Plaintiff€paid€the€sum€of€$17,€934.00€for€the€initial€software€package;Ð H˜ Ðthe€sum€of€$29,194.61€for€computer€hardware€and€related€items;€the€sum€ofÐ 4„ Ð$10,173.98€for€training€and€supplies;€the€sum€of€$6,000.00€for€leasing€aÐ  p Ðsubstitute€system.Ð  \ ÐÌ7.€€The€Defendant,€MedE€America,€as€parent€corporation€of€the€Defendant,Ð ä4 ÐGeneral€Computer€Corporation,€has€now€taken€over€the€contractual€and€legalÐ Ð  Ðobligations€of€the€Defendant,€General€Computer€Corporation.Ð ¼  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àGeneral€Computer€filed€a€motion€to€dismiss€and,€in€the€alternative,€for€a€summaryÐ ”ä Ðjudgment,€relying€upon€the€one„year€period€of€limitation€for€bringing€suit€contained€in€the€twoÐ €Ð Ðagreements€entered€into€by€the€parties:€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òò ò5.02€Governing€Law€and€Jurisdiction.Ð D!” Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€Agreement€is€to€be€governed€by€and€construed€in€accordance€with€the€lawsÐ #l! Ðof€the€State€of€Ohio.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€No€action€or€proceeding€based€upon€this€Agreement€orÐ $X" Ðarising€out€of€its€performance€shall€be€instituted€by€CUSTOMER€more€than€oneÐ ô$D # Ð(1)€year€after€the€cause€of€action€has€accrued.€€It€is€expressly€agreed€that€the€courtsÐ à%0!$ Ðof€the€State€of€Ohio€shall€have€personal€and€subject€matter€jurisdiction€(but€notÐ Ì&"% Ðexclusive€jurisdiction)€to€entertain€and€determine€all€disputes€and€claims€betweenÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€parties€hereto,€whether€for€specific€performance€injunction,€declaratoryÐ ¤(ô#' Ðjudgment€or€otherwise€both€at€law€and€in€equity,€arising€out€of€or€in€any€way€Ð )à$( Ðconnected€with€the€validity,€construction,€breach€or€anticipated€breach€of€thisÐ ° ÐAgreement.Ð œì ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€rejected€Wilson€Pharmacy's€insistence€that€the€contract€was€one€ofÐ tÄ Ðadhesion€and€granted€General€Computers€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.Ð `° ÐÌà  àà ` àWilson€Pharmacy€appeals,€raising€the€following€issues:Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø à1.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€failing€to€overrule€GeneralÐ  ` ÐComputerððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€because€there€was€material€evidenceÐ ü L  Ðthat€the€written€contract€was€a€contract€of€adhesion€which€did€not€fall€within€theÐ è 8  Ðreasonable€expectations€of€Wilson€Pharmacy.Ð Ô$  ÐÌà Ø à2.€€The€Trial€Court€erred€as€a€matter€of€law€in€failing€to€overrule€GeneralÐ ¬ü  ÐComputerððs€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€because€there€was€material€evidenceÐ ˜è  Ðthat€the€written€contract€was€a€contract€of€adhesion€that€was€unreasonablyÐ „Ô  Ðoppressive€and€unconscionable€to€Wilson€Pharmacy.Ð pÀ ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àThe€standard€for€appellate€review€of€the€Trial€Court's€granting€a€summary€judgmentÐ H˜ Ðhas€been€recently€restated€in€the€Supreme€Court€case€of€€òòStaples€v.€CBL€&€Associates,€Inc.óó,€15Ð 4„ ÐS.W.3d€83,€89€(Tenn.€2000),€as€follows:Ð  p ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€standards€governing€the€assessment€of€evidence€in€the€summary€judgmentÐ øH Ðcontext€are€also€well€established.€€Courts€must€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€theÐ ä4 Ðnonmoving€party€and€must€also€draw€all€reasonable€inferences€in€the€nonmoving€partyððs€favor.€€òòSeeÐ Ð  ÐRobinson€v.€Omeróó,€952€S.W.2d€at€426;€òòByrd€v.€Hall,óó€847€S.W.2d€€at€210„11.€€Courts€should€grantÐ ¼  Ða€summary€judgment€only€when€both€the€facts€and€the€inferences€to€be€drawn€from€the€facts€permitÐ ¨ø Ða€reasonable€person€to€reach€only€one€conclusion.€€òòSee€McCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153Ð ”ä Ð(Tenn.1995);€òòCarvell€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.1995).Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àAside€from€the€two€agreements€and€various€other€paper€writings€made€exhibits€to€theÐ X ¨ Ðpleading,€the€only€other€evidence€introduced€was€the€affidavit€of€Guy€B.€Wilson,€Chief€ExecutiveÐ D!” ÐOfficer€and€Chairman€of€the€Board€of€Wilson€Pharmacy,€which€we€quote€in€full:Ð 0"€  ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø à1.€€My€name€is€Guy€B.€Wilson.€€I€am€a€resident€of€Johnson€City€inÐ $X" ÐWashington€County,€Tennessee.€€At€all€times€material€herein€I€was€the€ChiefÐ ô$D # ÐExecutive€Officer€and€the€Chairman€of€the€Board€for€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà Ø à2.€€In€the€latter€part€of€1994,€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€was€contacted€by€Mr.Ð ¸'#& ÐBob€McKissick,€a€salesman€for€General€Computer€Corporation.€€Mr.€McKissickÐ ¤(ô#' Ðrepresented€to€representatives€of€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€that€his€company€wasÐ )à$( Ðcapable€of€providing€computer€software€that€could€accommodate€the€needs€ofÐ |*Ì%) ÐWilson€Pharmacy€in€its€retail€pharmacy€and€nursing€home€operations.€€InÐ h+¸&* ÐNovember€and€December,€1994,€a€series€of€meetings€was€held€with€Mr.Ð ° ÐMcKissick€with€various€representatives€of€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€during€whichÐ œì Ðtime€Mr.€McKissick€represented€that€General€Computer€Corporation€would€beÐ ˆØ Ðable€to€supply€computer€hardware€and€software€programs€that€would€support€theÐ tÄ Ðneeds€of€Wilson€Pharmacyððs€retail€and€nursing€home€operations.€€WilsonÐ `° ÐPharmacy,€Inc.,€was€particularly€interested€in€the€computer€service€being€offeredÐ L œ Ðby€General€Computer€Corporation€as€there€was€no€other€entity€known€to€WilsonÐ 8 ˆ ÐPharmacy,€Inc.,€in€the€trade€at€that€time€that€was€attempting€to€provide€aÐ $ t Ðcomparable€service.Ð  ` ÐÌà Ø à3.€€In€January,€1995,€a€standardized€contract,€attached€herewith€as€ð ðExhibitÐ è 8  Ð1",€was€submitted€to€me€for€my€signature€as€the€Chief€Executive€Officer€ofÐ Ô$  ÐWilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.€€The€contract€as€submitted€was€drafted€by€GeneralÐ À  ÐComputer€Corporation€and€was€submitted€to€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€on€a€take„it„Ð ¬ü  Ðor„leave„it€basis.€€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€did€not€participate€in€any€way€in€theÐ ˜è  Ðdrafting€of€this€standardized€contract€attached.Ð „Ô  ÐÌà Ø à4.€€On€or€about€January€21,€1995,€I€signed€the€contract€submitted€byÐ \¬ ÐGeneral€Computer€Corporation€as€the€Chief€Executive€Officer€of€WilsonÐ H˜ ÐPharmacy,€Inc.,€and€returned€the€signed€contract€to€representatives€of€GeneralÐ 4„ ÐComputer€Corporation.€€The€contract€was€then€approved€by€General€ComputerÐ  p ÐCorporation€on€February€3,€1995.€€The€installation€of€the€program€and€the€trainingÐ  \ Ðof€personnel€was€completed€around€mid„May,€1995€and€within€30€days€ofÐ øH Ðcontinued€use€of€the€system,€or€around€mid„June,€1995,€it€was€apparent€that€theÐ ä4 Ðsystem€as€installed€was€unable€to€perform€according€to€the€published€and€verbalÐ Ð  Ðrepresentations€of€representatives€of€General€Computer€Corporation.€€A€lawsuitÐ ¼  Ðwas€not€filed€against€General€Computer€Corporation€within€one€year€from€thatÐ ¨ø Ðtime,€as€representatives€of€General€Computer€Corporation€and€Wilson€Pharmacy,Ð ”ä ÐInc.,€spent€the€next€two€years€attempting€to€correct€the€deficiencies€of€the€system.€Ð €Ð ÐFinally,€in€June€of€1997,€it€became€apparent€that€the€deficiencies€could€not€beÐ l¼ Ðcorrected€to€meet€the€needs€of€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€and€the€system€was€ð ðshutÐ X ¨ Ðdownðð€and€at€considerable€expense€to€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€another€system€wasÐ D!” Ðinstalled.Ð 0"€  ÐÌà Ø à5.€€Wilson€Pharmacy€attempted€to€initiate€negotiations€with€GeneralÐ $X" ÐComputer€Corporation€through€letters€of€August,€September,€and€October,€1997,Ð ô$D # Ðwith€no€success.€€In€December,€1997,€I€initiated€contact€and€discussions€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðconducted€with€an€attorney,€and€in€January,€1999,€I€authorized€the€filing€of€suitÐ Ì&"% Ðagainst€General€Computer€Corporation.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà Ø à6.€€I€am€now€aware€that€General€Computer€Corporation€is€relying€onÐ )à$( ÐParagraph€5.02,€of€the€agreement€which€provides€that€ð ðno€action€or€proceedingÐ |*Ì%) Ðbased€upon€this€agreement€or€arising€out€of€its€performance€shall€be€instituted€byÐ h+¸&* Ða€customer€more€than€one€year€after€the€cause€of€action€has€accrued.ðð€€As€aÐ ° Ðcustomer€of€General€Computer€Corporation,€I€would€not€have€expected€such€aÐ œì Ðlimitation€on€the€time€to€file€suit€as€we€continued€to€attempt€to€correct€theÐ ˆØ Ðdeficiencies€for€over€two€years€after€we€were€aware€that€the€system,€as€installed,Ð tÄ Ðwas€not€meeting€the€representations€of€General€Computer€Corporation.€€WilsonÐ `° ÐPharmacy,€Inc.,€while€attempting€to€correct€the€deficiencies,€was€never€told€byÐ L œ Ðrepresentatives€of€General€Computer€Corporation€that€suit€would€have€to€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðbrought€within€one€year€after€its€cause€of€action€had€accrued.€€Given€theÐ $ t Ðcircumstances€under€which€we€found€ourselves,€Wilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€had€noÐ  ` Ðchoice€but€to€attempt€to€correct€and€resolve€all€those€problems€that€arose.€€BecauseÐ ü L  Ðthe€system€simply€was€not€as€represented€by€General€Computer€Corporation,€theÐ è 8  Ðadditional€time€was€needed€to€allow€General€Computer€Corporation€theÐ Ô$  Ðopportunity€to€live€up€to€its€representations.Ð À  ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àThe€leading€case€in€this€State€on€contracts€of€adhesion€is€òòBuraczynski€v.€Eyringóó,€919Ð ˜è  ÐS.W.2d€314€(Tenn.€1996).€€That€was€a€case€by€a€patient€against€a€physician€who€asserted€that€aÐ „Ô  Ðcontract€providing€arbitration€precluded€the€patientððs€suit.€€The€trial€court€found€in€favor€of€theÐ pÀ Ðpatient€and€refused€to€compel€arbitration.€€This€Court€reversed€the€trial€court€and€thereafter€theÐ \¬ ÐSupreme€Court€took€the€case€and€made€the€following€observation€(at€page€320):Ð H˜ ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ°ÒAn€adhesion€contract€has€been€defined€as€"a€standardized€contract€form€offered€toÐ  p Ðconsumers€of€goods€and€services€on€essentially€a€'take€it€or€leave€it'€basis,€withoutÐ  \ Ðaffording€the€consumer€a€realistic€opportunity€to€bargain€and€under€such€conditionsÐ øH Ðthat€the€consumer€cannot€obtain€the€desired€product€or€service€except€byÐ ä4 Ðacquiescing€to€the€form€of€the€contract."€Black's€Law€Dictionary€40€(6th€ed.€1990);Ð Ð  ÐòòBroemmeróó,€840€P.2d€at€1015.€Professor€Henderson€has€observed€that€"the€essenceÐ ¼  Ðof€an€adhesion€contract€is€that€bargaining€positions€and€leverage€enable€one€partyÐ ¨ø Ð'to€select€and€control€risks€assumed€under€the€contract.'"€58€Va.€L.€Rev€at€988.Ð ”ä ÐCourts€generally€agree€that€"[t]he€distinctive€feature€of€a€contract€of€adhesion€is€thatÐ €Ð Ðthe€weaker€party€has€no€realistic€choice€as€to€its€terms."€òòBroemmeróó,€840€P.2d€atÐ l¼ Ð1016;€òòLeongóó,€788€P.2d€at€168;€òòPepperóó,€693€P.2d€at€1260;€òòWheeleróó,€133€Cal.Rptr.Ð X ¨ Ðat€783.€€€Ð D!” ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°Òà  àà ` àIn€the€case€at€bar€we€do€not€believe€the€statements€in€the€affidavit€of€Mr.€Wilson€thatÐ #l! Ðhe€did€not€know€of€any€other€computer€corporation€which€would€provide€a€comparable€service,€orÐ $X" Ðthe€conclusory€statement€that€he€was€offered€a€standardized€contract€ð ðon€a€take„it„or„leave„it€basisððÐ ô$D # Ðare€sufficient€to€show€a€contract€of€adhesion€and€repel€the€motion€to€dismiss.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌà  àà ` àMoreover,€in€òòBuraczynskióó,€the€Supreme€Court,€after€finding€that€in€that€case€theÐ ¸'#& Ðcontract€was€one€of€adhesion,€went€on€to€state€the€following€(at€page€320):Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌÒ€°ÒÒ€°Òà Ø àOur€conclusion€that€the€contracts€were€contracts€of€adhesion€is€not,Ð |*Ì%) Ðhowever,€determinative€of€the€contract's€enforceability.€Enforceability€generallyÐ h+¸&* Ðdepends€upon€whether€the€terms€of€the€contract€are€beyond€the€reasonableÐ ° Ðexpectations€of€an€ordinary€person,€or€oppressive€or€unconscionable.€òòBroemmeróó,Ð œì Ð840€P.2d€at€1016.€Courts€will€not€enforce€adhesion€contracts€which€are€oppressiveÐ ˆØ Ðto€the€weaker€party€or€which€serve€to€limit€the€obligations€and€liability€of€theÐ tÄ Ðstronger€party.€€òòId.óóÐ `° ÐÌÒ°€ÒÒ°€Òà  àà ` àThereafter,€the€Court€found€the€contract€was€enforceable€as€the€terms€were€notÐ 8 ˆ Ðð ðbeyond€the€reasonable€expectations€of€an€ordinary€person€or€oppressive€or€unconscionable.ððÐ $ t ÐÌà  àà ` àIn€this€case€we€believe€that€even€if€the€contract€had€been€one€of€adhesion,€it€does€notÐ ü L  Ðmeet€the€second€test€set€out€in€òòBuraczynski.óóÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àFor€the€foregoing€reasons€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed€and€the€causeÐ À  Ðremanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€for€collection€of€costs€below.€€Costs€of€appeal€are€adjudged€againstÐ ¬ü  ÐWilson€Pharmacy,€Inc.,€and€its€surety.Ð ˜è  ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à__________________________________________Ð \¬ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOUSTON€M.€GODDARD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÐ H˜ Ð