The Motor Vehicle Franchise Contract Arbitration Fairness Act (15 USC 1226) creates a narrow exception to the Federal Arbitration Act, banning arbitration (without both parties’ post-dispute consent) of claims arising from a motor vehicle franchise contract, which it defines to mean a contract under which the franchisee both sells and services motor vehicles.  Vehicle Code 11713.,3(g) contains the same terms at the state level.  Here, Putnam had a separate franchise agreement for its sales and service location in Burlingame and, this decision holds, a separate contract for service only at a San Francisco location.  This dispute involved the San Francisco service location only.  The contract for that location didn’t authorize sale of motor vehicles and so was not a motor vehicle franchise contract for purposes of the Fairness Act or section 11713.3.  So arbitration was properly ordered.  State law did not separately bar arbitration of this claim.  Although the manufacturer may not have given proper state-law-required notice of its reasons for terminating the service contract, Putnam was not prejudiced since its attorney conceded at the arbitration hearing that he had been able to present Putnam’s complete defense and didn’t need to call other witnesses or submit additional evidence.