Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc. v. Universal Computer Consulting Holding, Inc.
Idaho Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
EISMANN, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing a complaint alleging violations of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act on the ground that the parties had entered into a contract that included a provision requiring them to arbitrate disputes between them. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 20,1993, Dan Wiebold Ford, Inc., (Dan Wiebold) entered into a written contract (Agreement) with Ford Dealer Computer Services, Inc., (FDCS), under which FDCS agreed to provide Dan Wiebold with computer hardware and software and software support…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Thomson-Csf, S.A. v. American Arbitration Association, Evans & Sutherland Computer CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
- Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Abela v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2004
- Kaleva-Norman-Dickson School District No. 6 v. Kalevanorman-Dickson School Teachers' Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
- Clark v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2005
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re Gulf Exploration, LLCTexas Supreme Court · 2009
- Wattenbarger v. A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.Idaho Supreme Court · 2010
- Wyo. Guardianship Corp. v. Wyo. State Hosp.Wyoming Supreme Court · 2018
- State v. Tyrell Garrett McNeelyIdaho Supreme Court · 2017
- Nemeth v. Shoshone CountyIdaho Supreme Court · 2019
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.