# In Re Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.

> Texas Supreme Court · June 9, 2006 · 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 711

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512916

## Case

- **Full name:** In Re PALM HARBOR HOMES, INC., and Palm Harbor Homes I, L.P. D/B/A Palm Harbor Village, Relator
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 9, 2006
- **Citations:** 49 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 711; 195 S.W.3d 672; 2006 Tex. LEXIS 529; 2006 WL 1562546
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Neill
- **Judges:** Johnson, Jefferson, Hecht, Wainwright, Brister, Medina, Green, Willett, O'Neill
- **Cited by:** 283 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512916

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the test for substantive unconscionability encompasses the parties’ general commercial background and the commercial needs of the particular case to determine if the arbitration agreement is so one-sided that it is unconscionable
- stating that just because the plaintiffs “would not have been able to buy the manufactured home unless they signed the arbitration agreement does not, in and of itself, make the agreement substantively unconscionable”
- holding that a third-party may enforce contract terms when it was not a party if contracting parties intended the contract to benefit the third-party and the contract wás entered into for the third-party’s benefit
- rejecting a claim that We agree that if the discovery limitations the arbitration an arbitration provision was substantively unconscionable agreement imposes operate to prevent effective presentation © 2014 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 In re …
- rejecting a claim that an arbitration provision was cluded, the arbitration agreement's discovery limitations substantively unconscionable where the challenged pro- "significantly reduce the plaintiff's ability to prevail in vision "effectively incorporate[d] established provi…

## Opinion text

Justice O’NEILL,
concurring.
In my view, the unilateral right that the retail contract conferred on the manufacturer to compel or avoid arbitration with the parties to that contract after the events giving rise to the Ripples’ claim arose rendered the contract’s arbitration clause unconscionable as to the manufacturer and non-binding on the Ripples. See J.M. Davidson, Inc. v. Webster, 128 S.W.3d 223 , 230 & n. 2 (Tex.2003). Because I agree with the trial court and the court of appeals on this point, I do not join part IV, A, of the Court’s opinion. Nevertheless, the Ripples’ claims against the manufacturer in this case necessarily rely on the terms of the retail contract and raise substantially interdependent and concerted misconduct; accordingly, I believe the Ripples are equitably estopped from seeking to avoid arbitration with the manufacturer. See, e.g., Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524 (5th Cir.2000). On this basis, I concur in the Court’s judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512916. Public record. Not legal advice.