Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pointer v. Regal Nissan Co.
Citations: 714 So. 2d 971; 1997 Ala. LEXIS 452Docket: 1961778
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 20, 1997; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Kenneth Pointer has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its order directing arbitration of his claims against Regal Nissan Company and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation. The court grants the petition, affirming that a writ of mandamus is the proper avenue for such a challenge. The requirements for mandamus include a clear legal right for the petitioner, an imperative duty on the respondent’s part that has been refused, the absence of an adequate alternative remedy, and the court's proper jurisdiction. Pointer's lawsuit against Regal Nissan and Nissan Motor Acceptance arises from allegations of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, deceit, and conversion related to his purchase of a 1995 Nissan 200 SX. Pointer had traded in his 1992 Chevrolet Silverado, with Regal Nissan agreeing to pay $7,000 for the truck's equity. After the sale, Regal Nissan's salesman informed Pointer that the truck was not worth the agreed amount and offered him two options: return the Nissan or sign a new agreement for a lesser trade-in value. Pointer declined both options but later received a check for only $4,000. The contract indicated that Regal Nissan was aware of significant prior damage to the Silverado, which Pointer disclosed during the transaction. The contract included an arbitration clause that Pointer did not sign, which he argues should render it non-binding based on precedent from *Crown Pontiac, Inc. v. McCarrell*, where an unsigned arbitration clause was deemed unenforceable. Regal Nissan contends the clause remains binding simply because it was part of the retail buyer’s order. The Crown Pontiac Court ruled that an unsigned arbitration clause lacks enforceability due to the absence of mutuality and assent, which are essential for a binding contract. In Lawler Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Tarver, the court emphasized that a signature indicates agreement, and the failure of McCarrell to sign the specific arbitration clause, despite signing other parts of the contract, demonstrated this lack of agreement. The court rejected arguments from Regal Nissan and Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation that the signature line in the "Arbitration Clause" section pertained to different terms, noting that all contract terms were clearly delineated with boldface headings. Consequently, the unsigned arbitration clause was deemed not part of the contract. Pointer's claim of fraud inducing the contract was deemed unnecessary to consider, as the arbitration clause's unenforceability had already been established. The trial court's order compelling arbitration was found to be erroneous, and Pointer was granted a legal right to have this order set aside. A writ was granted, with concurrence from several justices and dissent from the Chief Justice and another justice.