840 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1992)
Appellant asked the court to review a court of appeals opinion which held that an agreement to arbitrate, which appellant signed prior to undergoing a clinical abortion, was an enforceable, albeit adhesive, contract. The opinion affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellee abortion clinic.
- The reviewing court held that the agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable as against appellant because it was beyond appellant's reasonable expectations to expect to arbitrate her medical malpractice claims, which included waiving her right to a jury trial, as part of filling out three forms.
- The court found that there was no conspicuous or explicit waiver of the fundamental right to a jury trial, or any evidence that such rights were knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently waived.
- The court determined that appellant's waiver of such fundamental rights was beyond the reasonable expectations of appellant.
The agreement to arbitrate was unenforceable as to appellant because it was an adhesion contract and was beyond appellant's reasonable expectations; inconsistent portions of the opinion of the court of appeals were vacated, the judgment of the trial court was reversed, and the case was remanded.
Legal Definition for Abortion: http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2014/04/abortion-legal-definition.html
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.