In Re Halliburton Company and Brown & Root Energy Services, the Texas Supreme Court held that the disputed arbitration agreement was not illusory, given that, although the employer “expressly reserved the right to unilaterally modify or terminate the dispute resolution program,” a ten-day termination provision and another provision stating that any change could only be applied prospectively, the “savings clause” preventing the employer from evading its contractual obligation to conciliate. e. In Re Halliburton Company and Brown & Root Energy Services. “Carey argues that the arbitration clause in the manual is illusory, because the clause to change the terms would allow 24 hours fitness to unilaterally circumvent their promise of conciliation by modifying the manual. Thanksgiving gives 24 Hour Fitness the “right to review, erase and complete the personnel manual in which the arbitration provision is located.” As in Morrison, there is no “halliburton savings clause” in the confirmation that limits the 24-hour fitness ability to make retroactive changes to the arbitration clause. If a 24-hour fitness employee wishes to initiate arbitration with the company in accordance with the agreement, nothing would prevent 24 hour fitness from modifying the agreement and applying those changes to that ongoing dispute if they find that arbitration is no longer in their best interests. Indeed, the 24 Hour Fitness agreement allows you to keep your employees to the promise to pay while reserving their own escape hatch. “(Links added). The agreement also required customers to check changes to the site. In dismissing E*Trade`s application for summary judgment, Judge Patel said: “The plaintiffs assert that E*Trade`s unilateral ability to change the terms of the contract without notice and the requirement that they regularly check the terms of the contract is problematic. Although there are no magic words, the accusations are sufficient to assert a claim of inapplicability. Another decision challenging the terms of the “Check the Website for Amendments” contract – Roling v. E* Trade (blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/11/another_ruling.htm) In Carey v.
24 Hour Fitness, USA, Inc., (5e Cir. Jan. 25, 2012) (caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1592311.html) The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that an arbitration agreement was illusory, because one part of the agreement retained the unilateral right to modify or terminate the arbitration proceedings at any time.