of contract inte egistration agreement is unenforceable because it constitutes an illegal contract of adhesion. See Hauenstein & Bermeister, Inc. v. Metr-Fab Indus., Inc., 320 N.W.2d 886, 891 (Minn.1982) (concluding forum selection clauses in contract of adhesions are unreasonable, in part, because they are product of unequal bargaining power). In determining whether an arbitration agreement constitutes an invalid contract of adhesion, we examine the sophistication of the parties, the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement, and the burden arbitration places on the complaining party. Brown v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 664 F.Supp. 969, 974 (E.D.Pa.1987). There is a strong federal policy in favor of enforcing arbitration agre p. 861, 867 (D.Minn.1997) (<HOLDING>). Ottman also argues the U-4 registration
holding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that an oral agreement existed and that it was not modified holding that in employment dispute where corporate subsidiary no longer existed at the time arbitration complaint was filed the plaintiff was bound to arbitrate with the parent company that survived holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision holding where plaintiff was successful sales person court not persuaded that plaintiff was coerced defrauded or was under duress because told to sign on x of form u4 without allegedly reading its contents and valid agreement to arbitrate existed holding that an agreement to arbitrate before a beth din is enforceable under the colorado uniform arbitration act as long it is not unconscionable and did not result from duress