This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

C. Itoh (P) submitted a purchase order to Jordan (D) to buy steel coils. P’s order contained no provisions for arbitration. D sent its acknowledgment form, which on the front made acceptance expressly conditioned on Buyer's assent to additional or different terms on the back of its form; if that was not acceptable Buyer was to notify seller at once. Those terms included an arbitration clause. After the exchange of documents, D delivered, and P paid for the steel coils. P never expressly assented to or rejected those additional terms on the back of D’s form. P then sold the steel coil to Riverview. The contract between P and Riverview contained an arbitration clause too except as to quality issues. The coils delivered turned out to be defective. Riverview refused to pay P for the steel. P then sued D and Riverview. D filed a motion for a stay of the proceedings pending the arbitration, and the trial court ruled that the Riverview arbitration clause precluded referral; the matter could not be settled, and it was more preferable to resolve the matter in a single forum. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.