Demand for AAA arbitration

This is an example of a demand for AAA Arbitration

DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION
Plaintiff, XXXXXX, in March 2007, entered into a contract with XXXXXXX to acquire a 2002 Nissan Altima. The odometer disclosure does not disclose the amount of the miles. However, the buyer’s order indicates mileage at approximately 53,000 miles. There was an arbitration clause in the buyer’s order but not in the retail installment sales contract. There was no limitation on class actions in the arbitration agreement and the buyer’s order. There was an appearance package which is left blank $595 for a destination charge. There was also $8.30 for online registration in addition to an itemized dock fee of $142 for administration and $56.50 for a computer fee. Subsequent to the transaction, Ms. XXXXX realized there was a problem with the odometer and had the warranty history pulled from another Altima dealership, which indicates the mileage was in excess of 92,000 miles. She went to the dealership demanded they take care of it and they refused to do anything and said there was nothing wrong with it.
On February 6, 2007, the plaintiff acquired the subject automobile, a 2002 Nissan Altima, from the defendant, XXXXX. As part of the transaction, the plaintiff signed a buyer’s order and retail installment sales contract. As part of the transaction, the plaintiff received an odometer disclosure statement which was blank and did not complete the required federal disclosures. The buyer’s also contained a $595 destination charge on a used vehicle. There was no basis for such a charge and no basis for online registration.

Subsequent to the transaction, the plaintiff obtained the warranty history from an authorized dealership and realized that the odometer had been rolled back significantly. According to CARFAX, to which the defendant had access, the miles on 12/16/2005 was 96,084 miles. Thereafter, the title was taken on March 9, 2006 at 53,355 miles. It is believed that the defendants, their agents, servants and all employees at all time had access to CARFAX and anyone should have known that the vehicle had improper mileage. The requirement that the vehicle now be branded TMU or total mileage unknown reduces the value of the car in half. As such, the plaintiff purchased the vehicle for $14,128 and, as such, the value was half, or approximately $7,064. Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the plaintiff is entitled to three times damages, or approximately $21,000 plus attorney’s fees and costs. Defendants also violated the federal odometer law, federal and state, for failing to make appropriate disclosures with fraudulent intent. At all times, the defendant had accessed the CARFAX and failed to, in a reckless fashion, access CARFAX and failed to make appropriate disclosures to the plaintiff. Claims Federal Odometer Law, state odometer law, Consumer Fraud Act, Magnusson Moss Breach Warranty.