With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is that even if the agreement had not been received, Ms. Evans admitted use of the card obligated her to the arbitration clause anyway. It makes no sense, however, and there is no authority that one may be bound by an “agreement” of which she is unaware or becomes so by using the credit card when she has no notice or reason to know that it will have such an effect. See Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633 (Fla.1999); Gustavsson v. Washington Mut. Bank, 850 So.2d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); see also Barker v. Trans Union LLC, 2004 WL 783357 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 23, 2004)(noting that arbitration agreement would be unenforceable if purported cardholder never received amendment adding arbitration provision); cf., e.g., Battels v. Sears Nat’l Bank, 365 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1213-15 (M.D.Ala.2005) (<HOLDING>). To determine otherwise would be bootstrapping

A: holding that an arbitration provision in a credit card cardholder agreement was not unconscionable
B: holding that cardholder is bound by arbitration agreement upon factual determination that she received it and that subsequent use of card demonstrates assent
C: holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement
D: holding arbitration clause in credit card agreement unconscionable
B.