After considering both the procedural and substantive components of unconscionability, *1376 I conclude that enforcing the arbitration clause included in the agreements additionally the arbitration contract contrary to the payday customers would result in a result that is unjust. Consequently, the arbitration contract arising from the agreement that needs the ongoing parties to arbitrate is unconscionable and stricken through the contract as invalid. Defendants’ movement to remain and compel arbitration is REJECTED.
For the reasons that are forgoing Defendants’ movement to remain and compel arbitration is REJECTED.
Before this Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration with this Court’s Order dated November 25, 2003 (Doc. No. 22), or in the choice to remain procedures appeal that is pending. Upon consideration of this events’ briefs, we find no good explanation to alter this Court’s previous choice. Hence, Defendants’ movement for reconsideration (Doc. No. 27) is REJECTED. But, Defendants’ movement to remain procedures pending appeal is GRANTED.
Movement for Reconsideration
This Court denied Defendants’ motion to stay and compel arbitration in its November 25, 2003 order. After considering both the procedural and substantive components of unconscionability, we concluded that enforcing the arbitration clause included in the agreements and arbitration contract would induce an unjust result. Also, consideration of this 200 years that customer loan providers have actually exploited legislative attempts to protect customers verifies the necessity for close scrutiny. Christopher L. Peterson, Truth, Understanding, as well as the tall price credit rating: The historic Context or the reality in Lending Act, 55 Fla. L.Rev. 807, 853-54 (2003).
Most state that is modern guidelines are derived from English interest limit statutes.