that of fraud in the inducement and adhesion contracts. Before addressing Shaffer’s allegations that the arbitration clause was a contract of adhesion, the District Court presented the legal principles guiding a court’s power to adjudicate claims that there is fraud in the inducement of arbitration clauses. It should be noted that Shaffer does not allege, and the District Court did not find, that there was fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause. As to the arbitration clause, Shaffer solely alleges that it is a contract of adhesion. We are unaware of any relevant cases in which the court has found an adhesion contract when dealing with the purchase of a franchise rather than a consumer purchase. Cf. J & R Ice Cream v. California Smoothie Licensing, 31 F.3d 1259 (3d Cir. 1994) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, in Denlinger itself, the court
holding that nothing in the legislative history of the pennsylvania consumer fraud act suggests that the legislature ever intended statutory language directed against consumer fraud to do away with the traditional elements of reliance and causation and accordingly in order to maintain a class action suit under the pennsylvania consumer fraud act a plaintiff must allege reliance holding that a writ of execution under new jersey law is not an action against the consumer holding commercial franchises are not covered by new jersey consumer fraud act because they are businesses and not consumer goods recognizing that pennsylvania had no interest in denying its residents the greater damages available under new jersey consumer fraud statutes for claims against a new jersey seller holding that illinoiss consumer fraud act did not apply to the claim that attorneys charged excessive fees for legal services because the attorneyclient relationship was the subject of regulation by the state supreme court and the legislature did not specify that it intended the consumer fraud act to apply to the role of attorneys in relation to their clients