|
A state court in Florida affirmed the dismissal of an unconscionability claim after a lower court found that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable, even though the court did not inquire into whether the agreement was substantively unconscionable.
In Lopez v. Ernie Haire Ford, Inc., No. 2D06-1665, 2007 WL 486616 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Feb. 16, 2007), Lopez and Ford disputed over excess mileage charges on a leased vehicle. When Ford brought a motion to compel arbitration, Lopez argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
Under Florida law, an agreement will be invalidated as unconscionable only when a court finds both procedural and substantive unconscionability. The lower court held that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable and did not reach the substantive unconscionability inquiry.
The Court held that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable because Lopez had negotiated the mileage terms; therefore, he did not lack bargaining power. Additionally, the lower court did not err in ending the unconscionability inquiry once it found that the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable.
Subscribe to a free weekly update on ADR case law and
legislation
|