CA Supreme Court rules that Ford can’t force customers to arbitrate lemon law disputes

Published on

CALIFORNIA – The California Supreme Court ruled, July 3, in the Ford Motor Warranty Cases that the company cannot force car buyers to arbitrate lemon law claims using dealership contract clauses.

According to the court document, five plaintiffs purchased either a Ford Focus or Fiesta from various dealerships, between 2013 and 2014.

Each signed a sales contract with the dealership outlining sales and financing terms. Ford, the manufacturer, was not a party to the sales contract.

The dealer said they don’t offer a warranty, but the contract explained that the car might still be covered by the manufacturer’s warranty.

The sales contract included an arbitration clause stating: “Either you or we may choose to have any dispute between us decided by arbitration instead of in court or by jury trial.”

Ford argued it could use dealerships’ arbitration clause

After experiencing transmission problems with their cars, the plaintiffs sued Ford. 

They claim Ford marketed defective Fiesta and Focus transmissions that caused accidents and hid the issues from the public.

The complaints alleged Ford never disclosed the defects and publicly downplayed any danger.

The plaintiffs said they were misled into buying the cars by Ford’s ads, brochures and window stickers.

All five plaintiffs sued Ford for violating the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act – citing issues with express and implied warranties. Four also claimed Ford misled them by hiding known safety defects.

Ford argued it could use the dealership’s arbitration clauses to avoid court, even though it didn’t sign those contracts, by relying on a legal idea of estoppel from past cases like Metalclad.

Court rejected Ford’s request to use arbitration clause

The justices rejected this argument, stating that the lawsuit focused on Ford’s own conduct of alleged concealment of defects, and not on any obligations of the dealership contract.

They ruled that since the buyers’ claims weren’t based on the contract itself, and Ford wasn’t a party to it, Ford had no right to enforce the arbitration clause.

RELATED: CA settlement administrator accepting claims up to $5,000 for Nissan defects

spot_img

Latest articles

Oil company seeks $347 Million from California after environmental complaint

CALIFORNIA — Under mounting legal pressure, Sable Offshore Corp. has filed a motion seeking...

Governor signs bill to boost affordable housing in coastal California

CALIFORNIA — Governor Gavin Newsom has signed Senate Bill 484, a new law aimed...

Another immigrant dies while in ICE custody at California hospital

CALIFORNIA – The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced that Huabing Xie, an...

Operation Consequences nets 9 arrests, 15 guns seized in Victorville, Barstow and other areas

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY – The Sheriff’s Department announced on October 7 the results of...

More like this

California trucking company closes permanently, laying off 116 employees

CALIFORNIA – Epic Lightning Fast Service LLC, a trucking company based in San Diego...

California among states nearing recession, analysts say — recovery won’t start until 2027

CALIFORNIA — According to a new analysis by Moody’s Analytics, 22 states are already...

SoCal–to–Las Vegas High-Speed train cost now expected to exceed $21 Billion

CALIFORNIA — The estimated cost for the Brightline West high-speed rail line connecting Southern...