The Thompsons signed a retail installment contract with Lithia Dodge for the purchase of a new pickup truck. The interest rate was listed as 3.9 percent, and provided that the contract was not binding...

The Thompsons signed a retail installment contract with Lithia Dodge for the purchase of a new pickup truck. The interest rate was listed as 3.9 percent, and provided that the contract was not binding until the financing was completed, and that any disputes arising under the contract were to be resolved by arbitration. A week after the contract was signed, Lithia’s finance manager told the Thompsons that the 3.9 percent financing rate had been rejected by the company, and they would have to pay a rate of 4.9 percent. The Thompsons did not want that interest rate, so they asked for the pickup they had traded in to be returned to them. Lithia could not return the pickup because they had already sold it, so the Thompsons sued Lithia. The company argued that the matter should go to arbitration because the contract had a binding arbitration clause. The trial court agreed and the Thompsons appealed. The trial court’s decision was overturned on appeal and the case was allowed to go to trial. Why did the court not find that the binding arbitration clause bound the parties? Thompson v. Lithia Chrysler Dodge of Great Falls, 185 P.3d 332 (Mont. 2008).