would enter into [it] and which no honest and fair person would accept.’ ” Provencher, 409 F.Supp.2d at 1204 (quoting Blount v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 432 S.W.2d 549, 554 (Tex.App.1968)); see FirstMerit Bank, N.A., 52 S.W.3d at 757. Fiser claims that the arbitration agreement is substantively unconscionable because the agreement requires the buyer to arbitrate its claims against Dell while the parties are not required to arbitrate any hypothetical claims that Dell might have against a buyer. {38} Texas does not require that parties to an arbitration agreement be equally bound with respect to the arbitration agreement as long as the parties have “provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate.” Quinn v. EMC Corp., 109 F.Supp.2d 681, 788, 792 (8th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). {40} Application of Texas law does not offend
holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court