Legal Opinion · Dissent
Grant v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc.
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided November 14, 1997No. 1951586Published
1DissentSee, Justice
The majority holds that because the Grants’ arbitration agreement with Palm Harbor and Minton is not supported by a legally binding contract, Palm Harbor and Minton cannot compel the Grants to arbitrate. I respectfully dissent.
First, the issue whether the arbitration clause, contained in the worksheet estimate, is supported by a legally binding contract is not properly before this Court. The Grants failed to challenge the validity of the contract at trial and therefore may not make such a challenge for the first time on appeal. See Abbott v. Hurst, 643 So.2d 589, 593 (Ala.1994) (stating in…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Allied-Bruce Terminix Cos., Inc. v. DobsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Andrews v. Merritt Oil Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1992
- Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc., Del Monte Corporation, Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- McBro Planning and Development Company and McCarthy Brothers Company, a Joint Venture v. Triangle Electrical Construction Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.