Badie v. Bank of America
California Court of Appeal
79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 273 (1998)

- Written by Emily Pokora, JD
Facts
Bank of America (BOA) (defendant) issued credit cards to customers, including four individuals, various consumer-action organizations, and the California Trial Lawyers Association (collectively, customers) (plaintiffs). Each customer received an original credit agreement (original agreement) from BOA through either the credit card application or via mail after completing a pre-approved acceptance certificate. The original agreement included a change-of-terms provision allowing BOA to change or add any term, condition, or aspect of the agreement, provided that notice of the change was sent to customers. Customers received inserts, or bill stuffers, with their monthly bills that included a provision requiring alternative dispute resolution (ADR). The original agreement allowing BOA to add new terms was omitted from the bill stuffers. The customers brought suit, seeking to strike the ADR provision, arguing that they agreed to modifications of credit terms only, not added ADR provisions. BOA argued that the ADR provision was valid because BOA provided notice of the change as required by the original agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of BOA, finding that California public policy favored arbitration and that the original agreement allowed for the addition of the ADR provision because the original agreement’s statement that BOA could change any terms meant that BOA could amend or add any provision. The customers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Phelan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.