Partain v. Upstate Automotive Group
Supreme Court of South Carolina
1Per curiam
In this case we consider whether a tort claim premised on an alleged “bait and switch” is subject to an arbitration clause. Because we find the alleged conduct was not within the contemplation of the parties when they entered into the agreement, we find that the arbitration clause does not apply and we reverse the Court of Appeals opinion to the contrary.
FACTS
In March 2006, Petitioner Amos Keith Partain met with Mikel Gadoran, an employee of Respondent Upstate Automotive Group (Upstate Auto) and discussed the purchase of a 2006 Nissan truck. After negotiations over the sale price, Gadoran…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Zabinski v. Bright Acres AssociatesSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2001
- Long v. SilverCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2001
- Aiken v. World Finance Corp. of SCSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2007
- Gissel v. HartSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2009
- Partain v. Upstate Automotive GroupCourt of Appeals of South Carolina · 2008
3Cited by18 opinions
- Landers v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2013
- York v. Dodgeland of Columbia, Inc.Court of Appeals of South Carolina · 2013
- Herron v. CENTURY BMWSupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
- Parsons v. John Wieland Homes & Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc.Supreme Court of South Carolina · 2016
- Timmons v. StarkeySupreme Court of South Carolina · 2010
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.