By: dmc-admin//March 28, 2005//
“We also conclude the arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable. The circuit court found Wisconsin Auto was ‘experienced in the business of supplying auto loans, drafting agreements, [and] was in a position of greater bargaining power than [Jones].’ It found the Loan Agreement was presented to Jones ‘in a take it or leave it manner, and the terms of the arbitration agreement were not explained to [him].’ The circuit court further found Jones was in a desperate situation. Finally, the court found the one-sided nature of the arbitration agreement to be a ‘product of the parties’ unequal bargaining power,’ implicitly finding Wisconsin Auto the stronger bargaining party. These findings support our conclusion that the arbitration clause is procedurally unconscionable.”
Accordingly, we conclude the circuit court correctly determined the arbitration clause was unconscionable and unenforceable. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order denying Wisconsin Auto’s motion to compel arbitration.
Affirmed.
Recommended for publication in the official reports.
Dist I, Milwaukee County, Guolee, J., Higginbotham, J.
Attorneys:
For Appellant: Kenneth R. Nowakowski, Milwaukee; Lisa M. Arent, Milwaukee; Amy Marie Salberg, Milwaukee
For Respondent:James A. Walrath, Milwaukee; Peter M. Koneazny, Milwaukee; Hannah C. Dugan, Milwaukee