Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 435.460 (2026)

Notice of arbitration provisions required

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  435.460.  Notice of arbitration provisions required. — Each contract subject to the provisions of sections 435.350 to 435.470 shall include adjacent to, or above, the space provided for signatures a statement, in ten point capital letters, which read substantially as follows:

"THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES."

­­--------

(L. 1980 H.B. 1203 § 23)

(1985) Provisions of this section may not be applied to defeat the arbitration provision of a contract within the coverage of the Federal Arbitration Act (Maritime transactions or transactions involving commerce). Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce (Mo. banc), 685 S.W.2d 837.

(1985) Held to be invalid when applied to commercial contracts involving interstate commerce pursuant to preemption by the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. §§ 1-14 (1982). Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed and Produce Co., (Mo. banc) 685 S.W.2d 837.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 321 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).
Frye v. Speedway Chevrolet Cadillac, 321 S.W.3d 429 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Kimberly argued that Defendants had waived their right to seek enforcement of the Program; that the acknowledgment and agreement form the Defendants’ claimed Kimberly had signed did not comport with section 435.460; 6 that the Program was an adhesive, illusory, and…”
Duggan v. Zip Mail Servs., Inc., 920 S.W.2d 200 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 11× “However, pursuant to § 435.460 RSMo, an agreement to arbitrate is not enforceable unless it contains the following statement adjacent to or above the signature lines: THIS CONTRACT CONTAINS A BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION WHICH MAY BE ENFORCED BY THE PARTIES.”
State Ex Rel. Tri-City Constr. Co. v. Marsh, 668 S.W.2d 148 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 8× “Section 435.460 has not been construed since its enactment.”
Bunge Corp. v. Perryville Feed & Produce, Inc., 685 S.W.2d 837 (Mo. 1985). · cites it 7× “This case involves the constitutional validity of § 435.460, RSMo 1983 Supp., in a matter which is within the coverage of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.”
Mueller v. Hopkins & Howard, PC, 5 S.W.3d 182 (Mo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “2 Mueller also argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal for the reason that Missouri’s Uniform Arbitration Act (hereinafter Missouri Act) does not apply because the Agreement did not contain the notice required by section 435.460, RSMo (1994) and because…”
McCarney v. Nearing, Staats, Prelogar & Jones, 866 S.W.2d 881 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “That provision, § 435.460, states: Each contract subject to the provisions of sections 435.”
Greenwood v. Sherfield, 895 S.W.2d 169 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs next urge dismissal of Defendants’ appeal because of noncompliance with § 435.460 of the Missouri’s Uniform Arbitration Act.”
Kohner Props., Inc. v. SPCP Grp. VI, LLC, 408 S.W.3d 336 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 5× “SPCP also argues the Pledge Agreement is not arbitrable under the Missouri Arbitration Action because it lacks a notice of arbitration clause as required by Section 435.460 RSMo 2012. Because this case involves citizens of, property in, and transactions and operations across…”
Bertocci v. Thoroughbred Ford, Inc., 530 S.W.3d 543 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The notice, which appears to comply with section 435.460, 2 was conspicuously placed next to the signature line in all capital letters in bold print.”
Swain v. Auto Servs., Inc., 128 S.W.3d 103 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See section 435.460 and section 435.350. The Missouri Act cannot be applied to circumvent an arbitration provision that falls within the scope of the *107 FAA.”
Kagan v. Master Home Prods. Ltd., 193 S.W.3d 401 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “As set forth in Section 435.460, RSMo 2000: Each contract subject to the provisions of [Section] 435.”
Kinder v. Holden, 92 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “, except when Section 435.460 shall be applicable to said proceedings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.