Cintas Corp. v. Schaefer Autobody Ctrs., Inc.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Cintas Corp. v. Schaefer Autobody Ctrs., Inc.

547 S.W.3d 824

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketNo. ED 105960

StatusPublished

This text of 547 S.W.3d 824 (Cintas Corp. v. Schaefer Autobody Ctrs., Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cintas Corp. v. Schaefer Autobody Ctrs., Inc., 547 S.W.3d 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") appeals the trial court's denial of its application to compel arbitration for a dispute between itself and Schaefer Autobody Centers, Inc. ("Schaefer"). The dispute concerns whether an automatic renewal provision existed in an agreement between the parties, which would have extended the agreement for another five years, despite Schaefer's desire to terminate the parties' business relationship. The language of the arbitration clause at issue is unambiguous; the question is whether the agreement made between the parties on March 16, 2012, included the arbitration clause. Finding that there was sufficient for the trial court to determine the arbitration clause was not part of the agreement based on lack of mutual assent, we affirm the judgment.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Cintas Corporation ("Cintas") appeals the trial court's denial of its application to compel arbitration for a dispute between itself and Schaefer Autobody Centers, Inc. ("Schaefer"). The dispute concerns whether an automatic renewal provision existed in an agreement between the parties, which would have extended the agreement for another five years, despite Schaefer's desire to terminate the parties' business relationship. The language of the arbitration clause at issue is unambiguous; the question is whether the agreement made between the parties on March 16, 2012, included the arbitration clause. Finding that there was sufficient for the trial court to determine the arbitration clause was not part of the agreement based on lack of mutual assent, we affirm the judgment.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

547 S.W.3d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cintas-corp-v-schaefer-autobody-ctrs-inc-moctapp-2018.