WPC  "pz?y;7zƗ dYxJ BOE1=+P2ж&Kr!-ׅKIL3@jMkltp4kpIkB7 0􄴡 <ϼ"JKWEQ/>;1ڋH޵wJUFsx_3wbž gܷ2[_a5o Z#D,~ƒV%ek^|t, GW#U: % 0: UN U NS S ^ w 4 N   m E B \\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0,cAZ"Arial RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularA1 Eb0:i+00 3|xU d !USUS.,  _  XAXXX  XXA8AXXdd8  @ #XAXt#XXAINTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#XAX #XXAԈ &   April7,2004Session L #XAX#  XXA0 SHARONTAYLORv.DOUGLASBUTLERandCITYAUTOSALES #XAX=# J  AppealbyPermissionfromtheCourtofAppeals,WesternSection  J ЀChanceryCourtforShelbyCounty  6 @@No.CH0202873Hon.D.J._Alissandratos_,Judge  " @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200201275SCR11CVFiledAugust31,2004   AV) ` dE<h` A i     JaniceM.Holder,J.,concurringinpartanddissentinginpart. P   IconcurinthemajoritysholdingthatTaylorsclaimforfraudulentinducementofthe d contractmustbesubmittedtoarbitrationbecausethecontractsarbitrationprovisioncovers all P claims,demands,disputesorcontroversiesandspecificallystatesthatitisgovernedbytheFederal < ArbitrationAct.Iwriteseparately,however,becauseIdisagreewiththemajoritysdecisionto ( addresstheissueof_unconscionability_Ԁandwithitsconclusionthatthearbitrationprovisioninthis  caseisunconscionable.    _Unconscionability_Ԁwasnotallegedinthepleadings,wasnottried,andwasnotraisedinthe  CourtofAppeals.ThislineofargumentappearsforthefirsttimeinTaylorsbrieftothisCourt. t Therefore,Iwouldholdthattheissuewaswaived. `   Moreover,eveniftheissueof_unconscionability_Ԁhadnotbeenwaived,Idisagreewiththe 8!  majoritysconclusionthatthearbitrationprovisioninthiscaseisunconscionable.Thecontract $"t! requiresTaylortoarbitrateallofherclaimsagainstCityAuto,whileprovidingthat: Dealer, #`" howevermaypursuerecoveryofthevehicleundertheTennesseeUniformCommercialCodeand #L# CollectionofDebtduebystatecourtaction.Themajorityconcludesthatthisarbitrationagreement $8 $ isunreasonablyfavorabletoCityAutoandoppressivetoTaylor.Iamnotpersuadedbythe %$!% majoritysanalysis. &"&   Inmyview,themerefactthattherearedifferentforumsavailabletothepartiesinthiscase (#( doesnotmakethearbitrationprovisionunconscionable.Otherjurisdictionshaveheldthatan )$) arbitrationprovisiongrantingonepartytheoptiontolitigateitsclaimswhilebindingtheotherparty p*%* toarbitrateallofitsclaimsisnotunconscionable.See,e.g.,Harrisv.GreenTreeFin.Corp.,183 \+&+ F.3d173,183(3dCir.1999);Patev.MelvinWilliamsManufacturedHomes,Inc.(InrePate),198 H,', _B.R._Ԁ841,844(_Bankr_.S.D.Ga.1996);Exparte_McNaughton_,728So.2d592,599(Ala.1998); 4-(- _ ConsecoFin.ServicingCorp.v.Wilder,47S.W.3d335,34344(Ky.Ct.App.2001).Acontract  isunconscionablewherethe inequalityofthebargainissomanifestastoshockthejudgmentofa  personofcommonsense,andwherethetermsaresooppressivethatnoreasonablepersonwould  makethemontheonehand,andnohonestandfairpersonwouldacceptthemontheother.Haun t v.King,690S.W.2d869,872(Tenn.Ct.App.1984)(quotingBrennerv.LittleRedSch.House, ` Ltd.,274S.E.2d206,210(N.C.1981)).AlthoughthearbitrationagreementrequiresTaylorto L  arbitrateallofherclaimswhileprovidingajudicialforumtoCityAutoforcertainclaims,inmy 8  opinionthislackofsymmetrydoesnotrisetothelevelofbeingshockingorunfairlyoppressive. $ t Instead,itisnotunreasonableforTaylortoagreetoforegoarbitrationofaclaim,suchasthe  ` recoveryofavehicle,thatcanbedecidedexpeditiouslyinajudicialforum.SeeConsecoFin.  L  ServicingCorp.,47S.W.3dat343.Furthermore,thereisnobasistopresumethatarbitrationwill  8  notaffordTayloranadequateopportunitytopresentherclaims.Seeid.at344.Iamoftheopinion $  thatthearbitrationprovisionatissueshouldbeenforcedaccordingtoitsterms.Therefore,Iwould   affirmthetrialcourtsdismissalofTaylorscomplaint.   XAXXXA   `     h     _____________________________ \    `     h     JANICEM.HOLDER,JUSTICE#XAXXXA#