Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Robert and Margo Rebar Case Brief
Cook's Pest Control, Inc. v. Robert and Margo Rebar1010897Supreme Court of AlabamaDecember 13, 2002FactsOn August 28, 2000, Cook's Pest Control and Mr. & Mrs. Rebar entered into a renewable "Termite Control Agreement" for 1 year. Under that agreement, Cook's Pest Control was obligated to inspect for and treat termites for the Rebars.
On August 16, 2001, Mrs. Rebar paid for the renewal of the contract and submitted an "Addendum to Customer Agreement". The agreement changed the terms of the contract, including a statement that "Arbitration shall not be required for any prior or future dealings between Cook's and Customer." The addendum also stated that "Continued honoring of this account by [Cook's Pest Control] acknowledges agreement to [the] terms."Procedural HistoryOn August 30, 2001, the Rebar filed action against Cook's Pest Control alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of duty to warn, unjust enrichment, breach of duty, negligent training, supervision and retention of employees, and bad-faith failure to pay and bad-faith failure to investigate a claim. Cook's moved to compel arbitration based upon the arbitration provision contained in the agreement. The Rebars opposed the motion to compel arbitration. On December 18, 2001, the trial court denied Cook's motion to compel arbitration. Cook's Pest Control appealed.
IssueThe issue at hand is whether the trial court incorrectly found that Cook's Pest Control had accepted the terms contained in the Rebar's addendum.
Arguments of the PartiesCook's Pest ControlThe appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly found that it had accepted the terms in the addendum, and that the addendum itself was "an improper attempt to unilaterally modify an existing contract." Cook's also asserted that the employees who negotiated the check from the Rebars were not authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the company.
Mr. & Mrs. RebarThe Rebars argue that a mandatory and binding
On August 16, 2001, Mrs. Rebar paid for the renewal of the contract and submitted an "Addendum to Customer Agreement". The agreement changed the terms of the contract, including a statement that "Arbitration shall not be required for any prior or future dealings between Cook's and Customer." The addendum also stated that "Continued honoring of this account by [Cook's Pest Control] acknowledges agreement to [the] terms."Procedural HistoryOn August 30, 2001, the Rebar filed action against Cook's Pest Control alleging fraud, negligence, breach of contract, breach of warranty, breach of duty to warn, unjust enrichment, breach of duty, negligent training, supervision and retention of employees, and bad-faith failure to pay and bad-faith failure to investigate a claim. Cook's moved to compel arbitration based upon the arbitration provision contained in the agreement. The Rebars opposed the motion to compel arbitration. On December 18, 2001, the trial court denied Cook's motion to compel arbitration. Cook's Pest Control appealed.
IssueThe issue at hand is whether the trial court incorrectly found that Cook's Pest Control had accepted the terms contained in the Rebar's addendum.
Arguments of the PartiesCook's Pest ControlThe appellant argues that the trial court incorrectly found that it had accepted the terms in the addendum, and that the addendum itself was "an improper attempt to unilaterally modify an existing contract." Cook's also asserted that the employees who negotiated the check from the Rebars were not authorized to enter into a contract on behalf of the company.
Mr. & Mrs. RebarThe Rebars argue that a mandatory and binding