This appeal concerns the enforceability of conflicting arbitration provisions in documents signed by a consumer when purchasing a vehicle and raises the question of whether the assignment of one of those contracts eliminates the conflict. Plaintiff purchased a used 2020 Jeep Grand Cherokee from defendants and signed two documents relevant to this appeal: (1) the Separate Arbitration Document (SAD); and (2) the Retail Installment Sale Contract (RISC). Defendants signed the RISC and then assigned their interest in the RISC to Valley National Bank "without recourse."
After plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants, alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, seeking to enforce the arbitration provision of the SAD only. Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the two arbitration provisions in the SAD and RISC were invalid for lack of mutual assent.
The court affirms the trial court's holding that the conflicting arbitration provisions do not clearly convey to the buyer the conditions or process of arbitration. The court also holds that the assignment of the loan contract did not eliminate the conflict. Therefore, the court affirms the trial court's order invalidating the arbitration provisions and denying defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.