A California appeals court has found that an auto dealer’s used car sales agreement that had been translated into Spanish but omitted translation for the arbitration clause renders the clause unenforceable.
In Ramos v. Westlake Services, LLC, Alfred Ramos bought a used car from Pena’s Motors, an agent for Westlake Services, LLC. The negotiation between Ramos and Pena’s Motors was conducted primarily in Spanish, which is Ramos’ native language. Although the sales contract was written in English, Pena’s Motors provided Ramos with what they said was a Spanish translation of the complete agreement. Ramos then signed the English version of the contract, which stated that he fully read and understood the arbitration clause within the agreement.
Later, Ramos sued Westlake over an optional insurance policy he had purchased with the vehicle, alleging that the policy violated California’s unfair competition laws. Based on the arbitration clause in the sales agreement, Westlake moved to compel arbitration. However, it was discovered that the arbitration clause had been omitted from the Spanish translated document furnished to Ramos during negotiations. Based on that fact, an Alameda Superior Court judge denied Westlake’s motion to compel arbitration.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeal for the First District upheld the trial court’s ruling, finding that there was no mutual agreement to arbitrate “because the arbitration agreement was hidden in the English Contract and not included” in the Spanish translation. Since Westlake could not produce the translation of the arbitration clause, it had no proof that Ramos had agreed to arbitrate any disputes with Westlake.
While Ramos’ action of acknowledging and understanding the arbitration clause by signing the English version of the contract might normally bind him to the terms of the clause, the court found that the “circumstances of this case are not typical.” The court found the fact that Ramos was supplied with a Spanish translation to be significant in supporting Ramos’ contention that he spoke little English and that the arbitration clause was “hidden” in the English contract. Based on this, the court found that there was fraud in the execution of the arbitration clause and no mutual agreement to arbitrate.
The attorneys at Glass & Goldberg in California provide high quality, cost-effective legal services and advice for clients in all aspects of commercial compliance, business litigation and transactional law. Call us at (818) 888-2220, send an email inquiry to info@glassgoldberg.com or visit us online at glassgoldberg.com to learn more about the firm and to sign up for future newsletters.
