|
A federal district court in Mississippi ordered arbitration even though the applicable arbitration agreement was missing because uncontested testimony indicated that the moving party always requires an arbitration agreement for such transactions.
In JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Lott, No. 5:06CV102KS-MTP, 2007 WL 30271 (S.D. Miss. Jan. 3, 2007), Lott bought a vehicle from Thames Autoplex (Thames) on an installment plan. The contract was later assigned to Chase Bank (Chase).
When the vehicle was repossessed by an unnamed entity claiming that someone else owned the vehicle, Lott sued Thames and Chase. Chase filed a motion to compel arbitration but did not submit a copy of the arbitration agreement because the sales documents were missing. In place of the arbitration agreement, Chase submitted an affidavit from Thames' president, who stated that everyone buying a vehicle from Thames must sign a standardized arbitration agreement.
Based on the affidavit from Thames' president, which was uncontested, the Court found that Thames and Lott had entered into Thames' standardized arbitration agreement. In making this finding, the Court cited Banks v. Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc., 435 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2005) for the principle that "where a contract has been destroyed or lost, the parties may – as Chase did – use parol evidence to prove its existence and its terms."
Given its finding that Lott and Thames entered into Thames' standardized arbitration agreement, the Court granted Chase's motion to compel arbitration.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|