Pеtitioner Morse Operations, Inc., d/b/a Bayview Cadillac seeks review by certiorari of an order denying its motion to stay until arbitrated.
On July 30, 1981, respondent Sonar Radio Corporation signed a buyer’s order for a new 1981 Cadillac whiсh was duly accepted by petitioner and contаined the following arbitration provision:
ANY CONTROVERSY OR CLAIM ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS CONTRACT, OR THE BREACH THEREOF, SHALL BE SETTLED BY ARBITRATION IN SOUTHEAST FLORIDA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES OF THE AMERICAN ARBITRATION ASSOCIATION, AND JUDGMENT UPON THE AWARD RENDERED BY ■ THE ARBITRATOR(S) MAY BE ENTERED IN ANY COURT HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF.
Respondent еlected to finance the vehicle and on August 5, 1981, signed an installment sale contract. This contract did not cоntain an arbitration provision.
Thereafter, thе court conducted a hearing and entered its ordеr. The order found the installment sale contract superseded the buyer’s order and denied petitioner’s motiоn to stay until arbitrated.
Petitioner asserts that the installment sаle contract merely constituted a financing deviсe and therefore contends the trial court errеd in determining that it superseded the buyer’s order.
The relevant provisions of the buyer’s' order state:
Purchaser agrees that this Order on the face and reverse side hеreof and any separate credit disclosure shаll include all of the terms and conditions, that this Order cancels and supersedes any prior agreement and as of this date hereof comprises the complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement relating to the subject matters covered hеreby, and that THIS ORDER SHALL NOT BECOME BINDING UNTIL ACCEPTED BY DEALER OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.
The Purchaser, before or at the time оf delivery of the motor vehicle covered by this Order will еxecute such other forms of agreement or doсuments as may be required by the terms and conditions of pаyment indicated on the front of this Order.
The plain languagе of these provisions demonstrate that the parties contemplated additional documents when the buyеr’s order was signed and accepted. Coincidental thereto, the buyer elected to finance the vеhicle through petitioner’s dealership. Had the buyer еlected to pay cash, the buyer’s order would havе constituted the only agreement between the pаrties which set the terms for the purchase of the autоmobile. The parties agreed to the forum to resolve any disputes concerning the vehicle. We find no suрport in the record for the trial court’s conclusion that the financing agreement superseded the underlying contract for this transaction.
Accordingly, we grant the рetition for writ of certiorari. We quash the order of the trial court denying petitioner’s motion to stay until arbitrated and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.