Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar
Decision Date | 13 December 2002 |
Citation | 852 So.2d 730 |
Parties | COOK'S PEST CONTROL, INC., et al. v. Robert REBAR and Margo Rebar. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Nicholas B. Roth and Heather L. Necklaus of Eyster, Key, Tubb, Weaver & Roth, Decatur, for appellants.
Thomas F. Campbell and Bert J. Miano of Campbell & Baker, L.L.P., Birmingham, for appellees.
Cook's Pest Control, Inc., and three of its officers and/or managers (hereinafter referred to collectively as "Cook's Pest Control") are defendants in an action filed by Robert Rebar and Margo Rebar in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Cook's Pest Control appeals from an order of the Jefferson Circuit Court denying its motion to compel arbitration. We affirm.
On August 28, 2000, Cook's Pest Control and the Rebars entered into a one-year renewable "Termite Control Agreement." Under the agreement, Cook's Pest Control was obligated to continue treating and inspecting the Rebars' home for termites during the term of the agreement, which, with certain limited exceptions, continued so long as the Rebars continued to pay the annual renewal fee. The agreement contained a mandatory, binding arbitration provision. When the initial term of the agreement was about to expire, Cook's Pest Control notified the Rebars and requested that they renew the agreement for another year by paying the renewal fee. On August 16, 2001, Mrs. Rebar submitted a payment to Cook's Pest Control; with the payment she included an insert entitled "Addendum to Customer Agreement" (hereinafter referred to as "the addendum"). That addendum provided, in part:
The addendum proposed new terms for the agreement and notified Cook's Pest Control that continued service or negotiation of the renewal-payment check by Cook's Pest Control would constitute acceptance of those new terms. After it received the addendum, Cook's Pest Control negotiated the Rebars' check and continued to perform termite inspections and services at the Rebars' home.
On August 30, 2001, the Rebars filed this action against Cook's Pest Control. The Rebars alleged fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of duty, unjust enrichment, breach of the duty to warn, negligent training, supervision and retention of employees, and bad-faith failure to pay and bad-faith failure to investigate a claim.1 Those claims were based upon Cook's Pest Control's alleged failure to treat and control a termite infestation in the Rebars' home and to repair the damage to the home caused by the termites.
Cook's Pest Control moved to compel arbitration of the Rebars' claims. In support of its motion, Cook's Pest Control relied upon the arbitration provision contained in the agreement; Cook's Pest Control also submitted the affidavit testimony of the president of the company, who testified regarding the effect of Cook's Pest Control's business on interstate commerce.
The Rebars opposed the motion to compel arbitration, asserting, among other things, that a binding, mandatory arbitration agreement no longer existed.2 The Rebars asserted that a binding, mandatory arbitration agreement no longer existed because the agreement between the parties had been modified when it was renewed in August 2001. The Rebars presented to the trial court a copy of the addendum and a copy of the canceled check they had written to Cook's Pest Control in payment of their renewal fee, which Cook's Pest Control had accepted and negotiated. The Rebars also submitted the affidavit of Mrs. Rebar, who testified that after Cook's Pest Control had received the addendum and had negotiated the check for the renewal fee, Cook's Pest Control inspected the Rebars' home.
On December 18, 2001, the trial court denied Cook's Pest Control's motion to compel arbitration. In its order, the trial court stated:
Cook's Pest Control filed a "motion to reconsider"; that motion was denied by operation of law.
Cook's Pest Control appeals, asserting the following arguments:
Cook's Pest Control argues that the trial court incorrectly found that it accepted the terms included in the addendum by continuing to inspect and treat the Rebars' home after it received the addendum and negotiated the Rebars' check for the renewal fee. Cook's Pest Control argues that, under the terms of the agreement, it was already obligated to continue inspecting and treating the Rebars' home. Cook's Pest Control also argues that the addendum was an improper attempt to unilaterally modify an existing contract. We reject those...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Halbert v. Credit Suisse AG
...ETNs, the Halberts manifested acceptance to the terms of the offer contained in the Pricing Supplement. See Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar , 852 So. 2d 730, 738 (Ala. 2002) ("Conduct of one party to a contract from which the other may reasonably draw an inference of assent to an agreeme......
- Southern Bakeries, Inc. v. Knipp
-
Tyus v. Va. Coll., LLC
...authority may enter into a contract and bind his or her principal.'" Linn, 2008 WL 2945558, at *8 (quoting Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar, 852 So.2d 730, 738 (Ala. 2002)). The paragraphs of Linn that follow the court's discussion of Cook's Pest Control are informative on the apparentage......
-
Murray v. Holiday Isle, LLC
...from which the other may reasonably draw an inference of assent to an agreement is effective as acceptance." Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Rebar, 852 So.2d 730, 738 (Ala.2002) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Both Fitzner and Holiday Isle engaged in a continuous course of co......