Million v. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES, INC.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Million v. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES, INC.

248 S.W.3d 143, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 393, 2008 WL 762299

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 25, 2008

DocketWD 68219

StatusPublished

This text of 248 S.W.3d 143 (Million v. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES, 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

Million v. HOUSEHOLD RETAIL SERVICES, INC., 248 S.W.3d 143, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 393, 2008 WL 762299 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Robert Million brought this suit against appellants Household Retail Services, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. (Defendants), alleging civil conspiracy and intentional interference with a credit expectancy. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause disclosed in their credit application packet and contained in a cardholder agreement supposedly mailed with the Best Buy Card used by Million. The motion was denied by the trial court. This court finds that Defendants failed to establish the authenticity of the documents they set forth as proof of the agreement to arbitrate. On that basis, the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed. As a published opinion in this case would be without prece-dential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Respondent Robert Million brought this suit against appellants Household Retail Services, Inc. and Best Buy Co., Inc. (Defendants), alleging civil conspiracy and intentional interference with a credit expectancy. Defendants moved to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause disclosed in their credit application packet and contained in a cardholder agreement supposedly mailed with the Best Buy Card used by Million. The motion was denied by the trial court. This court finds that Defendants failed to establish the authenticity of the documents they set forth as proof of the agreement to arbitrate. On that basis, the denial of the motion to compel arbitration is affirmed. As a published opinion in this case would be without prece-dential value, a memorandum explaining the court’s reasoning has been provided to the parties. Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 S.W.3d 143, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 393, 2008 WL 762299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/million-v-household-retail-services-inc-moctapp-2008.