Abstract
This case study is about an arbitration agreement that was signed by two parties, one Vassilkovska who bought a used Nissan from Woodfield Inc. However, later the Vassilkovska found that the price of the car had been misrepresented to her, in response to which she files a case against the company asking the court to dismiss the arbitration agreement.
One Nadejda Vassilkovska bought a used Nissan from Woodfield Nissan, Inc. At the time of purchase, the plaintiff also signed an Arbitration Agreement. In the Arbitration Agreement, Vassikovska agreed to renounce her right to pursue any action related to the transaction in the court. In turn, Woodfield decided to do the same.
Sometime later, the plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming that the respondent misrepresented the price of the car in a financing agreement. The plaintiff argued that the arbitration agreement should not be entertained, as she was seeking cancellation of the entire sales contract, including the Arbitration Agreement.
An Arbitration Agreement is a written contract in which two or more parties can settle their disputes outside the court. However, in certain situations, one of the parties may go to court and ask for the agreement to be revoked.
The interesting point is that the entire Arbitration Agreement was illusory because though Woodfield made sure that any problem arising from the plaintiff’s end will be handled through arbitration, it also ensured that in case there is any issue related to payment the case may be solved by the court.
The plaintiff said that she was looking to purchase a vehicle of up to $7000 the salesman showed her a $9,000 automobile and convinced her to seek a loan for the car. Vassilkovska claimed that after purchasing the vehicle, she received a contract with an “unpaid balance” and the salesman told her that she would pay the amount in three years. However, she later received a payment book from her lender, the unpaid loan balance was more and to be paid in five years.
The court concluded that the Arbitration Agreement was illusory, as Woodfield had exempted itself from exempting all conceivable claims against the plaintiff. And thus, has made the Arbitration Agreement null and void and rejected Woodfield’s claim to dismiss arbitration.
References
- Appellate Court of Illinois,First District, Second Division. Nadejda VASSILKOVSKA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WOODFIELD NISSAN, INC., Defendant-Appellant
- US arbitral institutions and their rules https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/us-arbitral institutions-and-their-rules
- https://www.coursehero.com/tutors-problems/Business/10596429-Case-83-Vassilkovska-v-Woodfield-Nissan-Inc-facts-issues-rule-a
