Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office
Decision Date | 08 January 1999 |
Parties | INFINITI OF MOBILE, INC., et al. v. English OFFICE and Mildred Office. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Marion A. Quina, Jr., William E. Shreve, Jr., and J.M. McMillan III of Lyons, Pipes & Cook, P.C., Mobile, for appellants.
David Michael Huggins and Gordon K. Howell of Turner, Onderdonk, Kimbrough & Howell, P.A., Chatom; and William L. Utsey of Utsey, Christopher, Newton & Utsey, Butler, for appellees.
Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. ("Infiniti"), and one of its sales representatives, Ron McCovey, appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration of the fraud and breach-of-warranty claims filed against them by English Office and his wife, Mildred Office.1 We reverse and remand. The following facts are undisputed: English Office bought a motor vehicle from Infiniti on September 23, 1996. Mr. Office purchased the vehicle for his wife, using their joint funds. Mr. Office wrote a check on a joint account owned by him and his wife; the check, which was for the full purchase price, was made payable to "Infiniti of Mobile." During the preparation of the various sales documents, McCovey, in accordance with Infiniti's policy, filled in by hand the necessary sales information on a boilerplate "New Vehicle Retail Buyer's Order" form. The front of that form clearly identified Infiniti as the seller and Mr. Office as the buyer, and it contained pertinent information such as the description of the vehicle, the vehicle identification number, the price, etc. The signature of the Infiniti representative is illegible; however, the form appears to have been executed by McCovey. Mr. Office's signature appears in the bottom right corner of the front of the form; it appears under the following provision, which is in bold type that is larger than much of the rest of the wording on the front page:
The details of the arbitration agreement and procedure referred to on the front of the form were set out on the reverse side of the form above lines designated for filling in the "Vehicle Description," the "Vehicle Identification Number," the signature of the "Seller(s)/Lessor(s)," the signature of the "Buyer(s)/Lessee(s)," and the "Date." All of these lines were left blank.
After obtaining Mr. Office's signatures on the first retail-buyer's-order form, which he had filled out by hand, McCovey took that form to Mark Morgan, who was Infiniti's finance manager at the time of the sale. Morgan, again in accordance with Infiniti's policy, prepared another boilerplate, but this time computer-generated, "New Vehicle Retail Buyer's Order" form using the information contained on the first form. In fact, the information contained on both forms is identical. The second form was identical to the first one, with one exception. During the process of transferring the information from the handwritten form to the computer-generated form, Morgan mistakenly printed the information on a retail-buyer's-order form that identified the seller as "Jaguar of the Gulf Coast, Inc." Morgan explained the mistake in an affidavit that Infiniti submitted in support of its motion to vacate the trial court's order denying arbitration:
Apparently the Offices did not notice the mistake; however, there is no question that the Offices understood that Infiniti was the seller of the vehicle.3 The trial court erred in denying Infiniti's motion to reform the second retail-buyer's-order form so as to identify Infiniti, rather than Jaguar of the Gulf Coast, Inc., as the seller.
Mr. Office placed his initials on the front of the second retail-buyer's-order form on the five lines that corresponded to the lines he had signed on the front of the first form, including the line in the bottom right corner under the bold-type provision entitled "Dispute Resolution Agreement." The reverse side of the second form, like the reverse side of the first form, set out the details of the arbitration agreement. The two lines on the reverse side of the second form designated for the "Vehicle Description" and "Vehicle Identification Number," like the corresponding two lines on the reverse side of the first form, were left blank. However, on the reverse side of the second form, Morgan signed on the line designated for the signature of the "Seller(s)/Lessor(s)"; Mr. Office placed his initials on the line designated for the signature of the "Buyer(s)/Lessee(s)"; and the date "9/23/96" was filled in. The front of the second form contained the following provision, which is included in a group of seven provisions dealing with such matters as property insurance, limitation of remedies, etc.:
Mr. Office's signature appears two paragraphs below this provision, on a line apparently designated for the buyer to acknowledge consent to the seven provisions set out above it.
The trial court ruled that Infiniti's use of the "Jaguar of the Gulf Coast" dealer's form, in conjunction with Mr. Office's failure to sign the reverse side of the first handwritten retail-buyer's-order form, created an ambiguity as to whether Mr. Office had agreed to the "Dispute Resolution Agreement," which appeared in both forms.
With respect to whether Mildred Office was obligated to arbitrate, the trial court stated:
The Offices argue that the trial court properly denied Infiniti and McCovey's motion to compel arbitration. (We will sometimes hereinafter refer to the two defendants together as "Infiniti.")
Infiniti argues that the undisputed...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Matthews v. At & T Operations Inc.
...447 (Ala.1997); Ex parte Warren, 718 So.2d 45 (Ala.1998); Georgia Power Co. v. Partin, 727 So.2d 2 (Ala.1998); Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office, 727 So.2d 42 (Ala.1999); Colonial Sales–Lease–Rental, Inc. v. Target Auction & Land Co., 735 So.2d 1161 (Ala.1999); see also McPheeters v. McGin......
-
Custom Performance Inc. v. Dawson
...between her husband and Capitol Chevrolet, and at the same time seek to avoid the arbitration agreement. See Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office, 727 So.2d 42 (Ala.1999); Delta Constr. Corp. v. Gooden, 714 So.2d 975 (Ala.1998); and Ex parte Dyess, 709 So.2d 447 (Ala.1997).”); Infiniti of Mob......
-
Southern Energy Homes, Inc. v. Ard
...a contract and repudiate its burdens and conditions. Value Auto Credit, Inc. v. Talley, 727 So.2d 61 (Ala.1999); Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office, 727 So.2d 42 (Ala.1999); Georgia Power Co. v. Partin, 727 So.2d 2 (Ala. 1998); Delta Constr. Corp. v. Gooden, 714 So.2d 975 (Ala.1998); Ex par......
-
Williams v. Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc.
...Lee v. Grandcor Med. Sys., Inc. , 702 F. Supp. 252, 253 (D. Colo. 1988) (asserting breach of contract); Infiniti of Mobile, Inc. v. Office , 727 So.2d 42, 43 (Ala. 1999) (asserting claim of breach of warranty); Parker v. Ctr. For Creative Leadership , 15 P.3d 297,298 (Colo. App. 2000) (asse......