The court held that the provision was unenforceable. In reaching this conclusion, it emphasized two features of the formation process which indicated a lack of meaningful choice.
First, the contract was a standard form contact provided by Chrysler and precluded any bargaining about terms; indeed, as the court noted, the dealer did not even have the authority to change the terms of the contract. The buyer had to take or leave the contract as is.
Second, virtually every new car manufacturer had the same warranty in its contract; consequently, someone who purchased a new car could not do so without agreeing to the warranty.
Compare Gatton v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 152 Cal. App. 4th 571 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 2007).