Partain v. Upstate Automotive Group, 386 S.C. 488

Summary

The Supreme Court of South Carolina considered whether a consumer's South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act claim alleging a vehicle dealership's bait-and-switch conduct was subject to a broad arbitration clause. The court held that although the claim appeared to fall within the clause's language, the alleged substitution of a different vehicle was an outrageous and unforeseeable tort that the parties did not contemplate submitting to arbitration. The court reversed the South Carolina Court of Appeals.

Holdings

1. Partain's factual allegations were encompassed by the language of the broad arbitration clause because they concerned negotiations leading to the sale and the terms and provisions of the sale.
2. A broad arbitration clause does not apply to alleged outrageous tortious conduct that was clearly outside the parties' contemplation and unforeseeable to a reasonable consumer in the context of normal business dealings. The alleged bait-and-switch conduct therefore was not subject to arbitration.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Partain's bait-and-switch claim was within the scope of the sales agreement's broad arbitration clause.
2. Whether alleged fraudulent and outrageous conduct that was unforeseeable to a reasonable consumer falls outside the parties' contemplation and therefore is not subject to arbitration despite broad arbitration language.

Disposition

reversed