VASSILKOVSKA V. WOODFIELD NISSAN, INC. 830 N.E.2d 619 (III App.2005)
Facts
The plaintiff Nadejda Vassilkovska purchased a used car from Woodfield Nissan on the month of July in the year 2002. Further to the contract of purchase, Vassilkovska signed an Arbitration Agreement promising to arbitrate claims that would arise relative to the sales transaction of the car instead of going to court to sue. Woodfield in return promised to arbitrate any arising claims against Vassilkovska although with the exclusion of various forms of claims like those responsible for recouping of money from the plaintiff. However, Vassilkovska sued Woodfield on February of the year 2003 for misinterpreting the car price indicated in the financing agreement.
Issues
Woodfield argued that the agreement insisted that Vassilkovska was supposed to arbitrate the claim hence prompting the court to decide on whether a valid arbitration agreement stood in regards to whether sufficient consideration was done in the existence of agreement of both parties to arbitrate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Rule
Arbitration Agreement stands a contract. The Uniform Arbitration Act demands that courts compel or stay an action of court pending arbitration when an application by a party shows an agreement of arbitration (Braun, 2002).The state of Illinois insists that the agreement to arbitrate holds just as any other contract. State of Illinois Gov. (2016), maintains a contract as an agreement or promise existent between two or more individuals or parties as enforced by law. However, the contract must meet certain elements for it to be enforceable by law. Such elements include that the agreement ought to be mutual hence expressed by an offer and acceptance; consideration, that Woodfield is trying to prove; of both age and competency of the parties and a legal purpose. Moreover, the consideration in the contract under law refers to the benefit that parties are expected to receive from the contractual deal.
Analysis
As earlier mentioned, consideration refers to the bargained-for exchange that sees the plaintiff receive some form of benefit or the promise. Woodfield in this case suffers a significant detriment. Therefore, there needs to be some form of damage towards Woodfield or benefits to the claimant negotiated in the initial exchange for the agreement of the plaintiff to arbitrate any claim against Woodfield. It thus requires the proof that consideration plays a part for the contract to hold as valid.
Woodfield in this case is not allowed the opportunity to refer to its promise in order to arbitrate hence enforce the plaintiff into doing a similar thing as it hardly stands anywhere in the Arbitration Agreement of the end of the promise by Woodfield to submission of disputes in the event of arbitration. The legal analysis thus finds that the Arbitration Agreement fails to display the requirement of Woodfield submitting to arbitration but rather a forceful imposition on Vassilkovska to arbitrate against Woodfield as they legally exclude Woodfield from the agreement to its exact promise (Thomson Reuters, 2017).
Conclusion
Legal analysis helped determine that the drafter contract on Arbitration Agreement failed to comprise of consideration as a key element for the promise by Vassilkovska by Woodfield to submit suchlike issues to arbitration. Therefore, the contract was not valid because it lacked a principle requirement. In regards to this invalidity of the contract, the contract is not legally binding hence cannot be enforced by law.
Were the Actions of Woodfield in Drafting the Arbitration Agreement Ethical?
The careful legal analysis insists or rather shows that the actions in the drafting of the Arbitration Agreement were not entirely ethical. The initial contract drafted by Woodfield seems to include the mutual consideration the involved parties but a closer examination reveals the contract obligates just one party. It is a clear show that Woodfield intentionally wanted to exclude itself from the contract in order to avoid abiding by it in case of disputes and more sue in regards to being sued as it forced Vassilkovska to submit her disputes in the process of arbitration.
Remedies for Misinterpretation
Vassilkovska will be able to seek the remedies of either rescission or damages if the court rules that Woodfield misinterpreted the car price (Davies, 2016). However, Vassilkovska stands to gain both damages and rescission in the event that the court finds the entire thing fraudulent and negligent misinterpretation. Vassilkovska may seek rewards with damages in lieu of rescission if the findings show the case as one of innocent misinterpretation.
References
Braun, M. E. (2002). The Revised Uniform Arbitration Act: Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 18(1), 237-248. Retrieved June 06, 2017, from http://el2ne5ae7f.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The+Revised+Uniform+Arbitra
Davies, P. S. (2016). Recession for Misrepresentation: The Cambridge Law Journal, 15-17. Retrieved June 06, 2017, from http://search.proquest.com.contentproxy.phoenix.edu/docview/1773185784?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=458
State of Illinois Gov. (2016, August). Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil Retrieved June 06, 2017, from Illinois Courts: http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/CircuitCourt/CivilJuryInstructions/700.00.pdf
Thomson Reuters . (2017). Case Law VASSILKOVSKA v. WOODFIELD NISSAN INC. Retrieved June 06, 2017, from Find Law for Legal Professionals: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1120209.html
