Disagreeing with Felisilda v. FCA US LLC (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 486, this decision holds that a standard California car sale contract with an arbitration clause does not require the car buyer to arbitrate his warranty claims against the car’s manufacturer. A warranty claim is not based on the car sale contract, but instead is an obligation of the manufacturer that exists without regard to the car sales contract’s terms. The standard car sale contract’s arbitration clause encompasses claims against the seller or its assignee, including claims arising from add-on products (like GAP insurance) that are purchased from third parties, but it does not encompass claims against an entire universe of unnamed third parties, such as the manufacturer. Since the suit on a warranty does not invoke the terms of the car sale contract, the car buyer is not equitably estopped from denying he agreed to arbitrate those claims. The manufacturer is not a third party beneficiary of the arbitration clause. The decision follows Ngo v. BMW of North America (9th Cir. 2022) 23 F.4th 943 on this point. The decision also holds that the manufacturer cannot compel arbitration on the ground there is a principal-agent relationship between it and the car dealer-seller of the car.