A state appeals court on Wednesday reinstated a car buyer’s putative class action against a dealership, finding an arbitration agreement void because it lacked an explicit waiver of the customer’s statutory rights.
The agreement also failed to advise the customer that her statutory rights would be preserved in the arbitral forum. It is “the language of the arbitration agreement, or more aptly what it fails to say, that compels us to reverse,” the court said in GMAC v. Pittella v. Pine Belt Enterprises Inc , A-3876-08, a suit alleging the dealership sold an extended warranty in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
