Appellate Opinion Is Divided And Issue Is Before The California Supreme Court
Automobile wreck. Between 1918 and 1920. Library of Congress.
The Fourth District, Division 2, has added one more appellate opinion to the mix of opinions concerning whether a form purchase and sale contract used by many new car dealers in California and including a form arbitration clause is unconscionable. It’s not unconscionable, says the Court, reversing the trial court judge. The Court finds “minimal” procedural unconscionability and no substantive unconscionability. Gonzalez v. Metro Nissan of Redlands, Case No. E056160 (4th Dist. Div. 2 Sept. 12, 2013) (Richli, J. author 3:0) (unpublished). As noted by the Court, the California Supreme Court has granted review of the issue in no fewer than five published appellate opinions so far, but has yet to decide any of them.
California Mediation and Arbitration has its own sidebar category for “automobiles”, because automobile dealers make widespread use of arbitration clauses in consumer contracts. Those clauses have generated quite a few appellate opinions – and those opinions are divided on the question of unconscionability.