Weidner v. McCann School of Business, Inc.
37 Pa. D. & C.5th 340
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2014Background
- Weidner filed an amended class action alleging breach of contract, UTPA violation, and RICO violations against McCann Education Centers, Inc. and Delta Career Education Corporation.
- Defendants moved to compel arbitration on an individual basis and to dismiss the case.
- Enrollment agreement between Weidner and McCann contains an arbitration provision requiring binding arbitration in Pennsylvania.
- The arbitration clause appears on the fourth page of a four-page agreement; Weidner signed page two.
- Plaintiff contends there is no evidence she assented to the arbitration clause, given its location and manner of presentation.
- The court considered whether FAA or state contract principles govern the validity of the arbitration agreement and how they interact with federal policy favoring arbitration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a valid arbitration agreement | Weidner did not assent to arbitration. | Arbitration provision is part of a four-page agreement and binding. | No clear and unmistakable agreement to arbitrate found. |
| Governing law and standard for validity | FAA may not require arbitration if no valid agreement exists; state contract principles apply. | FAA applies; state-law contract principles used with policy favoring arbitration. | FAA governs, but ordinary state contract principles applied; no valid agreement found. |
| Effect of arbitration clause presentation and placement | Arbitration clause is buried and not emphasized; not enough assent. | The clause is part of the signed enrollment packet and validly presented. | Arbitration clause not presented in clear and unmistakable manner; not enforceable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Moses H. Cone Mem'l. Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (FAA Section 2 and savings clause framework for contract defenses)
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011) (validity of arbitration agreements; unconscionability; preemption)
- Pisano v. Extendicare Homes, Inc., 77 A.3d 651 (Pa. Super. 2013) (state-law contract formation; apply ordinary principles with FAA priority)
- McNulty v. H&R Block, Inc., 843 A.2d 1267 (Pa. Super. 2004) (court must look beyond mere signing; assess clear assent to arbitration)
- Quiles v. Financial Exch. Co., 879 A.2d 281 (Pa. Super. 2005) (arbitration agreements construed strictly; must be clear and unmistakable)
- Cumberland-Perry Area Vocational-Technical Sch. Auth. v. Bogar & Bink, 396 A.2d 433 (Pa. Super. 1978) (strict construction of arbitration agreements)
- Petrie v. Haddock, 119 A.2d 45 (Pa. 1956) (signature evidence of intent to be bound; particularity in contracting)