Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Glassford v. BrickKicker and GDM Home Services, Inc.

Supreme Court of Vermont

Decided November 4, 2011No. 2009-362Published

1Concurrence

Burgess, J.,

¶ 36. concurring and dissenting. Certainly BrickKicker’s one-sided and practically impossible arbitration clause is as unenforceable as its self-defeating terms were undisclosed and unconscionable. This clause is so ridiculously unfair that it defies reformation and should be simply foreclosed, entitling plaintiffs to pursue, and BrickKicker to respond to, traditional civil remedies. There is no basis upon which to reform the clause, since the parties have no other underlying agreement. “Vermont law and public policy strongly favor arbitration as an alternative to litigation for…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Tunkl v. Regents of University of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1963
  2. Muhammad v. County Bank of Rehoboth Beach, DelawareSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2006
  3. Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1995
  4. EBWS, LLC v. Britly Corp.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2007
  5. Lamell Lumber Corp. v. Newstress International, Inc.Supreme Court of Vermont · 2007

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API