quotation marks omitted). Stinger contends that the arbitration provisions are unconscionable because (1) they are contracts of adhesion imposed by a party with superior bargaining power; (2) he had no meaningful choice about whether to accept them because all credit cards contain similar provisions and he is a business traveler who needs a credit card; and (3) Chase’s amendment of the arbitra tion agreements by enclosing new terms along with his credit card bills constituted unfair surprise. However, the cases Stinger cites in support of his argument are neither binding on this court nor factually similar to this case, and Stinger’s arguments ar ase and Stinger was not unconscionable. III. CONCLUSION Stinger and Chase entered into a valid agreement to arbi ptr.2d 845, 850-51 (1991) (<HOLDING>); A & M Produce Co. v. FMC Corp., 135
holding that a 746 percent error rate is unacceptably high holding that  1322b2 prohibits modification of the interest rate on the loan on the debtors principal residence holding that the proper rate for prejudgment interest is the rate fixed by the parties in a contract holding alleged contract to make 500000 line of credit available failed for indefiniteness when no evidence was introduced regarding interest rate of alleged loan or repayment terms holding unconscionable loan terms with an extraordinarily high interest rate