East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor
826 So. 2d 709, 2002 WL 1584301, 2002 Miss. LEXIS 212 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An arbitration agreement may be invalidated for procedural unconscionability under general state contract law principles without offending the Federal Arbitration Act, especially where it lacks conspicuous print, informed consent, and an opportunity for the weaker party to understand or negotiate its terms.
Facts:
- On May 10, 1999, James E. Taylor, Jr. purchased a 1998 Ford F-150 pickup truck from East Ford, Inc. for $22,051.77.
- An East Ford salesman explicitly told Taylor that the truck was "new" and had never been titled.
- Taylor signed an "Offer to Purchase or Lease Vehicle" which contained an arbitration agreement as part of the transaction forms.
- After purchasing the truck, Taylor discovered it was not new but had been previously titled to another person.
- When confronted, East Ford's representative initially denied selling the truck as new, but after being shown the original bill of sale, issued an amended bill of sale reflecting it was sold as used.
- Taylor's expert provided an affidavit stating that the difference in cost between a new and the used truck was $6,676.77.
- Taylor stated in his affidavit that he signed the Offer to Purchase without being advised of the arbitration agreement, had no legal training, and did not willfully agree to arbitration.
- East Ford's salesman, Bryan Childress, confirmed in an affidavit that he did not discuss the arbitration agreement with Taylor and had no personal knowledge that such an agreement was part of the transaction.
Procedural Posture:
- James E. Taylor, Jr. filed a lawsuit against East Ford, Inc. in the Hinds County Circuit Court (trial court) on March 15, 2000, alleging he was sold a used truck misrepresented as new.
- East Ford, Inc. filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration in the Hinds County Circuit Court, arguing that Taylor was bound by an arbitration clause in the purchase agreement.
- The Hinds County Circuit Court denied East Ford's Motion to Compel Arbitration, ruling that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable.
- East Ford, Inc. filed a Petition for Interlocutory Appeal with the Supreme Court of Mississippi, which was granted, allowing an appeal before the entire case was finished (East Ford was the appellant, Taylor the appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can an arbitration clause in a consumer vehicle purchase agreement be deemed procedurally unconscionable and thus unenforceable under state contract law, despite the federal policy favoring arbitration, when it is presented in inconspicuous fine print without explanation or highlighting?
Opinions:
Majority - Smith, P.J.
Yes, an arbitration clause can be deemed procedurally unconscionable and unenforceable under state law when it is presented in inconspicuous fine print without explanation. The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) generally favors arbitration, but it explicitly allows arbitration agreements to be invalidated on "such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." This includes state law contract defenses like unconscionability, as long as these defenses apply to all contracts and not solely to arbitration provisions. The Court applies a two-pronged test for unconscionability, which includes procedural and substantive elements. Procedural unconscionability focuses on two areas: 1) lack of knowledge, evidenced by inconspicuous print, complex language, disparity in sophistication, or lack of opportunity to study the contract, and 2) lack of voluntariness, typically seen in contracts of adhesion where terms are unnegotiable and the weaker party lacks alternative options. In this case, the circuit court found, and this Court affirms, that the arbitration clause was procedurally unconscionable because it appeared in very fine print, less than one-third the size of many other terms, was not bolded, and lacked any other visual emphasis that would alert a reader to its importance. In contrast, all other specific vehicle details were in boldface. Taylor's affidavit, supported by the salesman's, further indicated a lack of awareness and discussion regarding the arbitration agreement. Based on these findings of procedural unconscionability, it was unnecessary to address Taylor's arguments regarding substantive unconscionability or lack of consideration.
Dissenting - McRae, P.J.
Although the dissent ultimately agrees with the result to deny arbitration, it strongly disagrees with the majority's reasoning regarding the general favorability of pre-disposition arbitration and adhesion contracts, arguing they often lead to unconscionable outcomes for consumers. Justice McRae contends that consumers struggle to knowingly and intelligently waive constitutional rights like trial by jury when confronted with pre-disposition arbitration clauses, especially given that arbitration often limits remedies such as punitive damages and restricts discovery and judicial review. While acknowledging a place for arbitration in some commercial settings, the dissent asserts that in consumer contracts, arbitration clauses frequently involve overreaching and effectively preclude individuals and small businesses from accessing judicial remedies guaranteed by the Mississippi Constitution (Article 3, Sections 24, 25, and 31). The specific arbitration clause in this case is characterized as unconscionably oppressive and lacking mutuality of obligation because it unilaterally waives Taylor's constitutional rights (jury trial, punitive damages, court access) while largely preserving East Ford's right to pursue its claims in court. The dissent emphasizes that clauses limiting liability, such as this one, should undergo rigid scrutiny and only be enforced if fairly, honestly negotiated and understandingly entered into, which was clearly not the case here.
Concurring in part - Diaz, J.
Diaz, J. joins the dissenting opinion of McRae, P.J.
Analysis:
This case is significant because it clarifies the bounds of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in relation to state contract law. It powerfully demonstrates that the FAA's strong pro-arbitration policy does not override fundamental state law contract defenses, particularly procedural unconscionability. The ruling provides critical guidance for businesses, emphasizing that arbitration clauses, while generally favored, must be presented in a clear, conspicuous, and understandable manner to consumers, rather than being buried in fine print. This decision helps protect consumers from unknowingly forfeiting their right to judicial remedies and encourages more transparent contracting practices, thereby impacting the enforceability of adhesion contracts in future consumer disputes.
