Court Opinion

ID: 9789365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:35:21.271977+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:22.195986
License: Public Domain

ADAMS, J.,
concurs specially.
¶ 15 I concur with the majority opinion, but write separately to identify an essential fact which the majority opinion does not discuss. As its only basis for its claim to the car in the face of the fully executed contract, Howard Pontiac contended that the agreement was a result of a mistake of fact, entitling it to rescind the transaction. This is no dispute about the terms of the contract or its performance but about whether there was any meeting of the minds between these parties. If there was a mistake concerning price so that there was no contract, there can be no arbitration agreement as well. I do not regard this opinion as allowing a trial court to disregard an arbitration agreement on the basis that the contract had been fully performed where part of the dispute relates to whether the contract had been performed according to its terms.