DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice.
Appellant E-Z Cash Advance, Inc., appeals your order of this Pulaski County Circuit Court doubting its movement to compel arbitration. For reversal, E-Z Cash contends that a agreement finalized by Appellee Deborah Harris included a legitimate arbitration clause, hence preventing her from filing suit in circuit court. We disagree, and therefore, affirm.
This appeal is due to a dispute about the legality of specific loan deals E-Z that is involving Cash Harris. E-Z money is really a company this is certainly within the company of supplying cash loans to people who provide individual checks which are held before the debtor’s next payday. These deals are generally named “payday loans.” In June 2000, Harris provided E-Z money with a individual sign in the amount of $400 it consented to hold until Harris’s next payday. Harris ended up being expected to come back to E-Z money to either redeem the mortgage for the complete face quantity for the check or even to restore the mortgage. She made a decision to renew the mortgage by paying the attention and presenting a fresh check *438 when it comes to initial level of the money received, plus an extra solution cost for the extended term. Within the deal, Harris finalized an “Arkansas Deferred Presentment Agreement,” saying that there was clearly a check cashing charge of $40, in addition to a ten dollars deferred presentment charge. This kind additionally claimed that the $50 constituted a finance cost, having a apr of 372.4 per cent. Thereafter, Harris received $350 in money. Harris proceeded this arrangement with E-Z money until 3, 2000 august.
After Harris encountered problems repaying the attention due on her behalf loans, she filed suit, separately as well as on behalf of likewise situated individuals, against E-Z Cash. Inside her issue, Harris alleged that E-Z money violated Article 19, В§ 13, associated with the Arkansas Constitution by asking fascination with a quantity surpassing the most allowable rate. Continue reading →