Kloss v. Edward D. Jones & Co.

specially concurs.

¶48 I concur in our Opinion. However, as mentioned briefly at ¶¶ 21, 27 and 36 of our Opinion and at ¶ 47 of Justice Leaphart’s concurrence, there is an additional rationale supporting our decision in this case-i.e., whether Kloss effectively waived her rights to a trial by jury and to access to the courts1 by executing Jones’s 1992 and 1998 *138standard-form contracts. As far as I can determine, this is an issue of first impression in Montana.2 It is my intention to develop this rationale further.

¶49 Certainly, any person has the right to enter into an agreement which includes…