Thompson v. Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge of Great Falls, Inc.
Montana Supreme Court
185 P.3d 332 (2008)
- Written by Denise McGimsey, JD
Facts
Corey and Kimber Thompson (Thompsons) (plaintiffs) sought to purchase a truck from Lithia Jeep Dodge of Great Falls, Inc. (Lithia) (defendant). In January 2005, they made a down payment on a new truck, received a trade-in credit for their current vehicle, and intended to finance the rest. The Thompsons signed both a Retail Installment Contract and Vehicle Buyer’s Order relating to the purchase. The contract provided for an annual percentage rate (APR) of 3.9 percent and required that disputes be resolved by arbitration. The order likewise referred to an APR of 3.9 percent and required arbitration. The order further stated that the transaction would “not be a binding contract to the dealer” until the financing terms had been accepted by a financial institution. The Thompsons took the truck home. After a week, Lithia contacted them, demanding that they sign new papers reflecting a 4.9 percent APR or return the truck. The Thompsons left the truck at the dealership, but Lithia did not return their down payment or the trade-in vehicle. Lithia later submitted the initial loan application to Daimler Chrysler Financial Services Americas (Daimler Financial) (defendant), which accepted it. Lithia informed the Thompsons in January 2006 that it had made a payment to Daimler Financial on the Thompsons’ behalf in order to maintain the 3.9 percent APR. The Thompsons filed suit, to which the defendants moved to compel arbitration and stay discovery. The district court granted the motion, and the Thompsons appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rice, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 803,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.