Two arbitration agreements: One crashes, one survives

One reason there’s so much litigation over arbitration agreements is that two different judges may look at the same arbitration agreement, with one deciding it’s enforceable and the other deciding it’s unconscionable. Although the basic formula is the same from case to case, decisions differ based on minute details and by how much weight individual judges give to each element of the formula. This point was made apparent in the following two cases, both of which could have gone either way. Together they present a primer of how different fact finders parse opposite decisions on relatively similar facts. 

Legal steps to compelling arbitration 

Federal and California law treat valid arbitration agreements like any other contract and favor their enforcement. A written agreement to submit a controversy to arbitration is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, except when grounds exist that would allow for the revocation of any contract. Because arbitration is a contractual right, the threshold question in every request or petition to compel arbitration is whether an agreement to arbitrate exists. If so, has the person opposing arbitration shown the contract is unconscionable and unenforceable?