Legal Opinion

Sears Roebuck and Co. v. Avery

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided March 16, 2004No. COA02-925PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GEER, Judge.

The primary issue before this Court is whether plaintiff, Sears Roebuck and Co. (“Sears”), validly added an arbitration provision to the terms of defendant Barbara Avery’s Sears credit card agreement. While Sears, in arguing that it is entitled to compel arbitration, relies upon a provision in its cardholder agreement allowing it to change any term of the agreement, we hold, applying Arizona law, that Sears was only authorized by that provision to make changes relating to subjects already addressed in the original agreement. Because Sears’ arbitration clause did not fall into that…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. KaplanSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  2. Volt Info. Sciences, Inc. v. Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. U.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Mastrobuono v. Shearson Lehman Hutton, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  4. Badie v. Bank of AmericaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  5. Darner Motor Sales, Inc. v. Universal Underwriters InsuranceArizona Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Ge Betz, Inc. v. ConradCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2013
  2. DeCesare v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2004
  3. Evangelistic Outreach Center v. General Steel Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007
  4. Stone v. Golden Wexler & Sarnese, P.C.District Court, E.D. New York · 2004
  5. Ackerberg v. Citicorp USA, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2012

16 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