In Vernon v. Drexel Burnham & Co. (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 706, the court reversed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition to compel arbitration. The court concluded that the trial court had relied upon a faulty premise and held that "if VERNON did proceed alone to arbitration it would not mechanically render him unfit to represent a class or subclass of customers of DREXEL BURNHAM similarly situated. The determination whether or not VERNON can fairly and adequately protect that class rests in the sound discretion of the trial court , although, of course, VERNON may be disqualified to act as a representative plaintiff to subclasses of customers of DREXEL BURNHAM, if any, where the arbitration clause is not a factor. " (52 Cal.App.3d at p. 715, fn. 4.) The court also held that "in the instant case, the policy of law favoring arbitration prevails over the policy of law pertaining to class actions. . . . " ( Id. , at p. 715.) The court reasoned that: (1) "arbitration is a recognized and favored means by which parties expeditiously and efficiently may settle disputes which might otherwise take years to resolve. "; (2) ". . . there is perhaps no higher public policy than to uphold and give effect to contracts validly entered into and legally permissible in subject matter. . . . "; and (3) ". . . the substantive law of contractual agreement takes precedence over the class action, which is merely a procedural device for consolidating matters properly before the court." ( Id. , at pp. 715-716.)