Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co.
| Decision Date | 15 November 1956 |
| Citation | 158 N.Y.S.2d 876,5 Misc.2d 684 |
| Parties | Joseph B. DEUTSCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LONG ISLAND CARPET CLEANING CO., Inc., Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
Davis & Gilbert, New York City, Patricia Hatry, New York City, of counsel, for appellant.
Geller & Geller, Brooklyn, Benjamin Geller, Brooklyn, of counsel, for respondent.
Before EDER, HECHT and TILZER, JJ.
The arbitration clause included among the conditions set forth on the reverse side of the receipt given by this carpet cleaning company to the customer is lacking in mutuality. While the customer's claims are required to be arbitrated, the company's claim for money due is at its sole option litigable in the courts. Parties may, of course, expressly agree that only certain types of controversies between them shall be arbitrated. Here, however, we have a company engaged in furnishing services to retail customers unilaterally inserting an arbitration clause on the reverse side of a receipt. The customer signs it, receives a copy, and subsequently is sent a signed confirmation, which also has the printed conditions on the reverse side. But at no time is any specific reference made to the arbitration clause. Under these circumstances it cannot be said to represent a conscious agreement to limit arbitration to the customer's claims only. It is therefore unenforcible for lack of mutuality of obligation.
We are also of the opinion that the evidence elicited was insufficient as a matter of law to establish this receipt as an agreement binding the customer to the various conditions on the reverse side. It failed to meet the essential test of showing that these conditions, particularly the clause limiting the company's liability for negligence and this arbitration clause, had been brought to the attention of the customer.
Order reversed, with $10 costs, and motion denied.
The party seeking to escape arbitration in instances such as the one before us invariably contends that it had no knowledge of or did not comprehend the agreement.
The record discloses the following:
The agreement has on the face thereof, printed in clear type, the notation that the goods are 'Received From Above Subject to Terms and Conditions Imprinted on the Reverse Side Hereof'; the agreement was signed by plaintiff's wife and by defendant when the rugs were picked up; the original agreement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kalman Floor Co., Inc. v. Jos. L. Muscarelle, Inc.
...e.g., Arcata Graphics Corp. v. Silin, 59 A.D.2d 1007, 399 N.Y.S.2d 738, 738-739 (App.Div.1977); Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co., 5 Misc.2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876, 877 (Sup.Ct.1956). We disagree with this approach and follow the contrary view in which Alaska These cases are typical......
-
Sablosky v. Edward S. Gordon Co., Inc.
...their decisions might as well rest on the doctrine of unconscionability or public policy (see, e.g., Deutsch v. Long Is. Carpet Cleaning Co., 5 Misc.2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876 [App.Term], affd. no opn. 3 A.D.2d 1002, 165 N.Y.S.2d 435; Dwyer v. Biddle, 274 App.Div. 903, 83 N.Y.S.2d 138; and se......
-
Hull v. Norcom, Inc.
...from the fact it is a "contract of adhesion" and unconscionable in its terms. See also Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co., 5 Misc.2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876 (Sup.Ct.App. Term 1956) (the court holding that under the circumstances of one party unilaterally inserting a one-way arbitratio......
-
R.W. Roberts Const. Co., Inc. v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist. for Use and Ben. of McDonald Elec.
...in Florida. A New York case best illustrates the position of the parties in the instant action. In Deutsch v. Long Island Carpet Cleaning Co. Inc., 5 Misc.2d 684, 158 N.Y.S.2d 876 (1956), a claim was brought against a carpet cleaning company by a customer. The company argued that a receipt ......