Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
GSC Wholesale, LLC D/B/A Grocers Supply and the Grocers Supply Produce Co., LLC v. Zach Young
Citation: Not availableDocket: 14-20-00871-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; September 27, 2022; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Reversal and remand occurred in the case involving GSC Wholesale, LLC and Zach Young, with both majority and dissenting opinions filed on September 27, 2022, in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals (Case No. 14-20-00871-CV). The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that the unsigned Arbitration Agreement in the January 29, 2015 contract is unambiguous and enforceable based solely on the conduct of the parties. The dissent emphasizes that the ambiguity lies in whether GSC’s signature was a necessary condition for the enforceability of the Arbitration Agreement. Key points include: - The majority asserts that the Arbitration Agreement is enforceable despite the lack of GSC’s signature, citing a "Note to the Employee" indicating that the arbitration program is binding regardless of a signature. - The dissent counters that the requirement for GSC's signature, indicated above the signature line, implies that signature was a condition precedent to GSC's acceptance of the Arbitration Agreement. - The dissent references case law stating that a party cannot accept an agreement requiring a signature solely through conduct. - The dissent concludes that the ambiguous nature of the agreement does not allow for a determination that assent could occur through conduct without a signature. - Therefore, the dissent would uphold the trial court's denial of GSC's motion to compel arbitration and would not address the secondary issue regarding the scope of Young's claims under the Arbitration Agreement. Justice Margaret “Meg” Poissant authored the dissenting opinion, with the panel consisting of Justices Wise, Poissant, and Wilson, the latter authoring the majority opinion.