You agree to waive any claim or award of legal fees, including claims or mark-ups under Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. An arbitrator may grant any discharge on an individual basis. As a limited exception to the mediation of the agreement, she and we agree that you can make claims on small court claims if your rights are eligible to be heard by such a court. If you have any questions, complaints or complaints on any of the websites or if you have any technical difficulties with any of these sites, please email us via www.toyota.com/support/#!/app/ask or call us at 800-331-4331. I get the impression that Toyota has some expensive lawyers and at $300 an hour (or more) it wouldn`t take many hours to break a considerable bill. Will the average consumer be able to take the risk that if the case is lost, for whatever reason, he will pay Toyota`s legal fees? Arbitration is pretty bad (to be discussed in another blog), but the dreaded idea of paying the legal fees of this huge company is a considerable deterrent to even file a claim. When the family member asked the seller if the purchase of a car could be done without the signing of the arbitration agreement, the answer was, «I can`t sell you the car unless you sign it.» Enough talk. Buy your next car from another company. However, a court will refuse the implementation of an arbitration agreement if the worker can prove that the agreement is both materially unacceptable, so that the conditions themselves were unfair or unilateral; and (b) from an unacceptable procedural point of view, so the manner in which the agreement was presented was unfair, surprising or depressing.
In OTO V. Kho, the court took both aspects into account when analyzing the agreement. In Stage 1, the panel concluded that the parties had reached a valid conciliation agreement. «The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that the traditional principles of state law, in arbitration proceedings, allow a contract to be applied by or against non-parties to the treaty by adoption, by piercing the corporate veil, alter ego, initiation by reference, third-party beneficiary theories, waiver and Estoppel.» (Highlighted in the original). The compromise clause in issue included TLT, TMCC, «and/or one of our affiliates.» As such, the panel concluded that the defendant Toyota Motor Sales fell within the intended scope of the compromise clause and that the mediation agreement between the applicant and Toyota Motor Sales was valid. In that context, the panel rejected the applicant`s assertion that it was not aware that Toyota Motor Sales was related to TLT or TMCC because the language of the arbitration agreement was confused. The applicants purchased their vehicles on credit, either by entering into a «catch-up tempe sale contract» or a «sales contract» with their respective dealers.