(S.D.Tex.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see In re AdvancePCS Health L.P., 172 S.W.3d 603, 607-08 (Tex.2005) (rejecting the claim that a non-mutual arbitration clause was unconscionable). {39} In this case, Fiser agreed to pay for the computer and to be bound by the terms and conditions, including the agreement to arbitrate any claims he has against Dell. In exchange, Dell is obligated to provide Fiser with computer hardware, certain warranties, and service obligations. As both parties have obligations, albeit different ones, there is mutuality of obligation in the terms of the agreement. Other courts have reached similar conclusions in upholding the validity of arbitration agreements. See, e.g., Harris v. Green Tree Fin. Corp., 183 F.3d 173, 180 (3rd Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); see also Barker v. Golf U.S.A., Inc., 154
holding that parties to an arbitration agreement need not equally bind each other with respect to an arbitration agreement if they have provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate holding that the party demanding arbitration had waived its right to arbitrate by filing eight months earlier a complaint against the other party to the arbitration agreement holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added holding that the agreement was not illusory because it was supported by consideration insofar as the employee and employer were equally bound by a promise to arbitrate disputes