Pennsylvania has a well-established
public policy that favors arbitration, and this policy aligns with the federal
approach expressed in the Federal Arbitration Act.” . “Arbitration is a matter
of contract, and parties to a contract cannot be compelled to arbitrate a given
issue absent an agreement between them to arbitrate that issue.” . “Even though
it is now the policy of the law to favor settlement of disputes by arbitration
and to promote the swift and orderly disposition of claims, arbitration
agreements are to be strictly construed and such agreements should not be
extended by implication.
The Pennsylvania Legislature enacted
the MVSFA in 1947 in an attempt to promote the welfare of its inhabitants and
to protect its citizens from abuses presently existing in the installment sale
of motor vehicles, and to that end exercise the police power of the
Commonwealth to bring under the supervision of the Commonwealth all persons
engaged in the business of extending consumer credit in conjunction with the
installment sale of motor vehicles; to establish a system of regulation for the
purpose of insuring honest and efficient consumer credit service for installment
purchasers of motor vehicles; and to provide the administrative machinery
necessary for effective enforcement. 69 P.S. § 602.
Pursuant to the MVSFA, if a buyer is
purchasing a vehicle via installment sale, the contract must be in writing,
signed by the buyer and the seller, “and shall contain all of the agreements
between the buyer and the seller relating to the installment sale of the
motor vehicle sold[.]” 69 P.S. § 613(A) (emphasis added).
There are no cases interpreting
section 613(A) of the MVSFA. Looking at the clear and unambiguous language of
the statute, it is apparent that when a buyer makes a purchase of a vehicle by
installment sale, the retail installment sales contract (RISC) subsumes all
other agreements relating to the sale. See 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921(b)
(“When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter
of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”).
In this case, the Buyer’s Order
contained an arbitration agreement, but the RISC did not. Thus, we conclude
there was no enforceable arbitration agreement between Knight and Appellees,
and the trial court erred as a matter of law by granting Appellees’ Preliminary
Objections and submitting the case to binding arbitration.
