Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortdefendantarbitrationtrialarbitration clausearbitrator
contracttortdefendantarbitrationtrialarbitration clausearbitrator

Related Cases

Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Rosen, 242 Ill.2d 48, 949 N.E.2d 639, 350 Ill.Dec. 847
View Case »
Pour Le Bebe, Inc. v. Guess? Inc., 112 Cal.App.4th 810, 5 Cal.Rptr.3d 442, 03 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9123, 2003 Daily Journal D.A.R. 11,454
View Case »
Shaw v. State, 243 S.W.3d 647
View Case »
Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077
View Case »
Alexandru v. Strong, 81 Conn.App. 68, 837 A.2d 875
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Tortoriello v. Gerald Nissan of North Aurora, Inc., 379 Ill.App.3d 214, 882 N.E.2d 157, 317 Ill.Dec. 583

Facts

Nicole Tortoriello purchased a preowned Nissan from Gerald Nissan, financed by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. After initially signing a buyers order, she was informed that her financing was not approved and was pressured into signing a second buyers order with less favorable terms. The second order contained an arbitration clause that Tortoriello claimed she was unaware of and did not have the opportunity to read before signing.

Nicole Tortoriello purchased a preowned Nissan from Gerald Nissan, financed by J.P. Morgan Chase Bank. After initially signing a buyers order, she was informed that her financing was not approved and was pressured into signing a second buyers order with less favorable terms.

Issue

Whether the arbitration clause in the buyers order was unconscionable and whether the trial court or an arbitrator should decide its validity.

Whether the arbitration clause in the buyers order was unconscionable and whether the trial court or an arbitrator should decide its validity.

Rule

The Illinois Arbitration Act applies to arbitration provisions in contracts governed by Illinois law, and issues of unconscionability can be determined by the court rather than an arbitrator.

The Illinois Arbitration Act applies to arbitration provisions in contracts governed by Illinois law, and issues of unconscionability can be determined by the court rather than an arbitrator.

Analysis

The court found that the arbitration clause was not conspicuous and was buried in fine print, which deprived Tortoriello of a meaningful choice. The court also noted that the clause was part of a contract of adhesion, where there was a significant disparity in bargaining power. The trial court's findings on procedural and substantive unconscionability were upheld.

The court found that the arbitration clause was not conspicuous and was buried in fine print, which deprived Tortoriello of a meaningful choice.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's decision, ruling that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Who won?

Defendants, Gerald Nissan of North Aurora and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, prevailed because the Appellate Court found the arbitration clause enforceable and not unconscionable.

Defendants, Gerald Nissan of North Aurora and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, prevailed because the Appellate Court found the arbitration clause enforceable and not unconscionable.

You must be