Business Law Unit 2 Case Study
Unit 2 Case Study: Baker v Osborne Development Corp.
Name
Kaplan University
LS311-01: Business Law
Professor Starcher
December 13, 2012
When Thomas Baker and other homebuyers purchased their properties from Osborne Development Corp., they may not have know that if there were defects on the property they would have to go into arbitration for restitution. From what I understand of the reading, Osborne Development Corp. purchased the home warranties after the purchase of the properties then gave the documents to the new owners. The federal arbitration act allows the courts to automatically hold up any and all arbitration clauses that are included in the purchase of goods and services without any question as long as the contract was developed in a proper formatting. The first thing that the retailer has to make sure of when selling goods and services on a contract with an arbitration clause is that the consumer has the ability to negotiate the terms of the arbitration clause that is held within the contract. If this part of the contract were negotiable to Mr. Baker and the others then they would have had the ability to negotiate the arbitration clause out of the contract and would be able to sue HBW and Osborne Development. If the Osborne Development Corp. did not allow, or inform the homeowner of the right for negotiation then the purchasers would be able to enter this fact into testimony and have a strong chance of getting the arbitration agreement stricken from the contract. Not all states use the federal arbitration act, for example, California allows the arbitration clause to be removed from any contract as long as the two parties are agreeable to this action and as of April 20, 2010 a published decision by “the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision holding that a mandatory Arbitration Agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law”
Name
Kaplan University
LS311-01: Business Law
Professor Starcher
December 13, 2012
When Thomas Baker and other homebuyers purchased their properties from Osborne Development Corp., they may not have know that if there were defects on the property they would have to go into arbitration for restitution. From what I understand of the reading, Osborne Development Corp. purchased the home warranties after the purchase of the properties then gave the documents to the new owners. The federal arbitration act allows the courts to automatically hold up any and all arbitration clauses that are included in the purchase of goods and services without any question as long as the contract was developed in a proper formatting. The first thing that the retailer has to make sure of when selling goods and services on a contract with an arbitration clause is that the consumer has the ability to negotiate the terms of the arbitration clause that is held within the contract. If this part of the contract were negotiable to Mr. Baker and the others then they would have had the ability to negotiate the arbitration clause out of the contract and would be able to sue HBW and Osborne Development. If the Osborne Development Corp. did not allow, or inform the homeowner of the right for negotiation then the purchasers would be able to enter this fact into testimony and have a strong chance of getting the arbitration agreement stricken from the contract. Not all states use the federal arbitration act, for example, California allows the arbitration clause to be removed from any contract as long as the two parties are agreeable to this action and as of April 20, 2010 a published decision by “the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision holding that a mandatory Arbitration Agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable under California law”
References: Miller, R. L. and Jentz, G.A. (2010). Fundamentals of Business Law: Summarized Cases. Eighth Edition. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning Wachtell M. & Willner R. (2010). Mandatory arbitration agreement held unenforceable under California law. Viewed on 13 Dec 2012. Retrieved form: http://www.buchalter.com/bt/images/stories/Client_Alerts/m_wachtell_r_willner_mandatory_arbitration_agreement_held_unenforceable_under_california_law_04_2010.pdf