similar clauses other courts have held to be valid'—is unfair or unconscionable. Moreover, a number of courts have held that when a purchaser has .received a series of confirmatory documents containing an arbitration clause, and fails to object seasonably, the party is deemed to have consented to the clause as a term of its agreement with the seller. See, e.g., Leadertex, Inc. v. Morganton Dyeing & Finishing Corp., 1994 WL 445618 at *2-3 (S.D.N.Y. August 17, 1994) (finding an agreement to arbitrate where arbitration clause was contained in seller’s confirmation forms and the buyer had received many of these forms over a six-year period without objecting), affd, 67 F.3d 20 (2nd Cir.1995); Dixie Aluminum Prods. Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Int’l Corp., 785 F.Supp. 157, 160-61 (N.D.Ga.1992) (<HOLDING>). Because plaintiff received many of the
holding that seller carried insurance for benefit of buyer and held proceeds in trust for buyer when seller agreed to maintain insurance until possession date but bam burned before buyer took possession holding an arbitration clause contained in confirmations sent to buyer by seller was part of parties course of dealing and therefore part of the contract after buyer had repeated opportunities to object to the clause and had failed to do so holding that where buyer had opportunity to inspect goods and failed to inform seller in timely manner of defects buyer deemed to have accepted goods pursuant to  672606 holding that a seller could enforce an arbitration provision against a buyer even though only the buyer had signed the provision holding that contract requiring buyer to purchase a fixed quantity of goods that amounted to roughly 6080 of its needs was not unlawful because the agreements contained no exclusive dealing clause and did not require the buyer to purchase any amounts of the defendants product that even approached its requirements