![\"paper\"](\"https:\/\/mochamber.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/02\/paper-300x287.jpg\")
In the case, Manuel Lopez is suing H&R Block over $2 and $4 compliance fees he was charged for tax return preparation services in 2011 and 2012.<\/p>\nWith Missouri businesses already struggling to enforce arbitration agreements, an important case was heard in Kansas City that threatens do even more damage.<\/p>\n
In the case, Manuel Lopez is suing H&R Block over $2 and $4 compliance fees he was charged for tax return preparation services in 2011 and 2012.<\/p>\n
The case is noteworthy because Lopez is seeking to sue H&R Block despite the fact he agreed to arbitration when he used the company\u2019s services in 2011.<\/p>\n
A circuit court decision sided with Lopez, giving him the ability to sue, despite the arbitration agreement. On Feb. 17, the Western District Court of Appeals met at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law<\/a> to consider an appeal of that decision.<\/p>\n In explaining H&R Block\u2019s appeal, attorney Robert Adams<\/a> noted that more than 100 H&R Block customers had successfully utilized arbitration since 2008. Therefore, the company\u2019s process works and Lopez should be required to honor the arbitration agreement he signed in 2011.<\/p>\n \u201cWe believe that not only does this agreement provide a practical, viable means for dispute resolution, as reflected by the number of arbitrations done, but it actually makes arbitration easier, faster and better than filing a case in circuit court,\u201d Adams said.<\/p>\n However, an attorney for Lopez, argued that the case should go to court. He said the arbitration agreement was difficult for consumers to understand.<\/p>\n \u201cEven if the opt out was fairly delivered both in terms of substance and execution it would not mean that it wipes away the unconscionability of the rest of the agreement,\u201d said Norm Siegel<\/a>, attorney for Lopez.<\/p>\n Watch highlights from the appeal hearing:<\/strong><\/p>\n