law-public-policy-grounds
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)