to forest land designation. The evidence adduced at trial, however, was very hazy and plaintiffs have not established conduct by the assessor sufficiently misleading to warrant the remedy of estoppel. The third issue raised by plaintiffs, challenging the correctness of the assessor’s denial of farm use assessment for the subject property because of the planting of Christmas trees, cannot be reached by this court because of the disposition of the first issue presented in this decision. Plaintiffs’ failure to pursue their administrative remedies, by a timely appeal to defendant, precludes the court from consideration of whether Christmas trees are or are not a horticultural crop. However, in passing, it is noted that Monner v. Dept. of Rev., 3 OTR 523 (1969), is the law of the court (<HOLDING>). The final argument made by the plaintiffs
holding that arbitration provisions that preclude class actions are not unconscionable holding that christmas trees are not within the provisions of ors 2152032c holding that such provisions are valid holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa