Nathaniel Conti

First Paragraph

In Alltel Corp. v. Rosenow, the Arkansas Supreme Court held a contract between Alltel Corporation ("Alltel") and its costumers that contained an arbitration provision was unenforceable because the contract lacked mutuality. The Court reasoned because Alltel was the only party that was able to pursue judicial remedies without waiving its rights under the contract, there was no mutuality. As such, the contract could not be enforced according to the Court. Additionally, while Alltel challenged this on the premise that it violated AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion because Arkansas law only required mutuality in contracts for arbitration, the Arkansas Supreme Court disagreed, noting that mutuality in contracts was a requirement for every contract in Arkansas, not merely for arbitration agreements and therefore met the requirements of Concepcion. The Court's decision in Alltel represents one of the first attempts by a state supreme court to distinguish and limit Concepcion in order to provide some protection to consumers. It should be noted, however, that the Court failed to consider the United States Supreme Court decisions in Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co and progeny of cases in its discussion. Thus, its ultimate holding directly conflicts with Prima Paint precedent and must be viewed as a decision that incorrectly limits the arbitration process in contradiction of Supreme Court precedent.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.