East Ford, Inc. v. Taylor

In May 1999, James Taylor Jr. (plaintiff) purchased a truck from East Ford, Inc. (defendant). Taylor signed several forms, including one called an “offer to purchase or lease vehicle.” The offer form was preprinted with spaces for vehicle details to be inserted. On Taylor’s form, all the inserted details regarding his purchased vehicle, e.g., the make and model, and various other terms were in boldface type of a certain size. The form also contained an arbitration clause, which was in very fine print, about one-third the size of many other terms, and box-outlined. The form contained other boxes that outlined different clauses, and the arbitration terms were not in bold or underlined. Taylor did not discuss arbitration with his salesman, Bryan Childress, who confirmed the lack of discussion as well as the fact that Childress had never discussed arbitration with any customer and was not even aware that the form contained an arbitration agreement. Taylor attested that he was not advised of the arbitration clause and that he did not read it because Childress did not bring it to his attention. The arbitration clause was a long paragraph with different prongs and exceptions, prohibited Taylor from obtaining punitive damages, and allowed East Ford to opt out of arbitration only for claims brought by East Ford. Subsequently, Taylor discovered that the supposedly new truck he had purchased had been previously owned. Taylor sued East Ford for damages, and East Ford moved to compel arbitration. The trial court made factual findings regarding the arbitration agreement’s characteristics and found that the provision was unconscionable. East Ford appealed, and the Mississippi Supreme Court accepted review.