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

California man admits to $1.5 Million fraud through fuel tax credits

CALIFORNIA – The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced February 9 that a California...

California bill would prevent ICE agents from holding state or local public jobs

CALIFORNIA – Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez introduced legislation February 6 in a Facebook post that...

California laboratory to cut 376 jobs amid loss of government contract

CALIFORNIA — HRL Laboratories announced February 3 that it will lay off 376 employees...

California targets company for distributing 3D-printed ghost gun code

CALIFORNIA – Attorney General Rob Bonta announced February 6 that the state filed a...

More like this

California laboratory to cut 376 jobs amid loss of government contract

CALIFORNIA — HRL Laboratories announced February 3 that it will lay off 376 employees...

California recovers over $6 Million for farmworkers denied paid sick leave and wages

CALIFORNIA – The California Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO) announced on February 4 that it...

111,620 California borrowers suspended by SBA in $8.6 Billion pandemic fraud probe

CALIFORNIA – The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) announced on February 7 the suspension...