ILNews

Parties can't pick certain provisions to enforce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed an issue of first impression today regarding whether a person could seek to enforce rights under a vehicle purchasing agreement he didn't sign but then disavow other provisions set forth in the same document.

The issue in TWH, Inc. d/b/a Tom Wood Honda v. Jennifer Binford, No. 48A02-0805-CV-441, is whether Jennifer Binford was required to arbitrate her complaint of breach of warranty and fraud against the car dealer. Binford bought a used car for her son, Aaron. She was the only one to sign the purchase agreement with Tom Wood, which included an arbitration provision. Both she and Aaron signed the retail installment contract, which didn't have an arbitration provision.

After Aaron had some problems with the car, Binford filed her complaint; Tom Wood filed a motion to compel arbitration. Aaron filed a petition for permissive joinder, which was granted. The trial court denied Tom Wood's motion to compel, finding the company failed to get Aaron's signature on the purchase agreement that would mandate arbitration of the dispute.

The Court of Appeals agreed with Tom Wood's argument that because Aaron's claims are the same or similar to those of his mother and relate to the car purchase, he is bound by the arbitration clause and can't selectively choose the rights he wants to enforce and then disregard other provisions in the same document.

Aaron didn't initially sign the purchase agreement, but he then petitioned for permissive joinder since he is the co-purchaser of the car. As such, it constitutes a judicial admission and binds him to the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement, wrote Judge Edward Najam. Binford and her son can't seek affirmative relief from the transaction and disavow the arbitration provision in the purchase agreement. Tom Wood has proven that the dispute is the type of claim the parties agreed to arbitrate, so the appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration and remanded with instructions for the trial court to grant Tom Wood's motion and to enter judgment accordingly.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT