|
Rejecting an argument of unconscionability, the District Court of Appeal of Florida upheld an order compelling arbitration between a car buyer and used car dealership, pursuant to provisions of a sale and purchase agreement.
In Murphy v. Courtesy Ford, L.L.C., No. 3D05-1896, 2006 WL 3498583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2006), Murphy purchased a used vehicle from Courtesy Ford and agreed to sign all of the affiliated purchase agreements. One of these documents directed Murphy to read material on the reverse side, which included a binding arbitration clause typed in clear, regular-sized font. When Murphy attempted to sue Courtesy Ford for damages under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §501.201 to .213, Courtesy Ford moved to compel arbitration.
The Court agreed with Courtesy Ford, finding a valid written arbitration agreement encompassing Murphy’s claims. Previous Florida cases recognized the validity of similar arbitration clauses, even when they appeared not in the financing contract, but in the purchase agreement instead. See Passerrello v. Robert L. Lipton, Inc., 690 So. 2d 610, 611 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).
While there was nothing preventing her from reviewing the documents, Murphy argued that the agreement was unconscionable. The Court rejected this argument, finding “no evidence indicating that Courtesy Ford actively discouraged or prevented Murphy from knowing and understanding the disputed contract terms.” A similar case, Palm Beach Motor Cars Ltd., Inc. v. Jeffries, 885 So.2d 990 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004), was distinguishable because the arbitration clause in that case was presented in extremely small font, and the dealer’s employees failed to alert the buyer of these additional terms.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|