quoted from Denlinger, reiterated Shaffer’s allegations regarding the arbitration agreement, and concluded that the allegations amounted to a valid cause of action so that it would not dismiss the complaint on the basis that the FAA prohibited the court from hearing the matter. We conclude that the District Court erred in so holding. As a preliminary matter, it appears that the District Court conflated two distinct doctrines, namel ressed its lack of concern for unequal bargaining power when neither of the parties involved were consumers. 608 A.2d at 1066. The court concluded that the Appellant was an experienced businessman in spite of his repeated argument that he was only a high school graduate. Id.; see also Aamco Transmissions, Inc. v. Harris, 1990 WL 83336, at *4 (E.D.Pa.1990) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, we see no reason to view Shaffer
holding that a franchise contract requiring franchisee to waive right to jury trial was not adhesion contract as franchisee was perfectly free to reject the deal holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract holding that a controllers signature on a contract containing a forum selection clause was insufficient to waive sovereign immunity in part because the right to waive immunity was reserved to the tribal council recognizing the right to waive a jury trial holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur