Basulto Vs. Hialeah Automotive: Case Study

The lawsuit of Basulto v. Hialeah Automotive had its origins in a contract disagreement between parties. The plaintiffs in the case were Roberto Basulto and Raquel Gonzalez, whom were husband and wife and considered by the courts to be “the buyers”. On the other hand, the defendant in the case was Hialeah Automotive, LLC, who also went by the name of Potamkin Dodge, and was considered by the courts to be “the dealership” (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). In 2004, Basulto and Gonzalez purchased from Hialeah Automotive a 2005 Dodge Caravan. According to the buyers, the contract provided to them by the dealership was blank with the assurance that the sums would be filled in at a later time (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). Both parties had orally agreed upon …show more content…
The court reached the conclusion that “no valid agreement to arbitrate exist[ed] in the case” (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). The court argued that each of the three arbitration clauses, called for different dispute resolutions, which were contradictory to each other. One arbitration clause called for dispute by jury waiver, while another called for arbitration by a single arbitrator, and yet another required arbitration by a panel of three arbitrators. Furthermore, the court stated, “there was no meeting of the minds with respect to the terms by which [the dealership] intended the parties to be bound” (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). Thus, the court denied the dealership’s motion to compel arbitration under the first element of Seifert since no arbitration agreement ever existed between the …show more content…
This court considered the Third District Court of Appeals decision to enforce the Clause Arbitration agreement. The court disagreed with the verdict to enforce the Clause, arguing that the Third District Court of Appeals did not employ the Seifert standard established as a precedent in evaluating motion to compel arbitration agreements (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). Additionally, the court found the Third District Court of Appeals’ decision to enforce the arbitration clause under the Federal Arbitration Act, as a violation of the FAA section 4, and that both parties had not agreed upon arbitration terms (Basulto v. Hialeah, 2014). Therefore, the supreme court concluded that the trial court’s decision to deny the dealership’s motion to compel arbitration be reinstated and that the buyers be awarded attorney’s