Baker v. Osborne Legal Review
Thomas Baker and others bought new homes from Osborne Development Corp. The new homeowners later filed a complaint against Osborne Development Corp. for multiple construction defects in the houses they purchased. The complaint alleged causes of action for strict liability, and other breaches of contract, and negligence. ” By signing the application, the homeowners were presumed to have “agreed to the terms of the warranty”.
The question posed is whether the new homeowners are bound by the arbitration agreement they signed, or whether they could just sue Osborne Development Corp. in court. The Fourth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal answered both questions in its 2008 decision when it held that arbitration provisions in the HBW 2-10 warranty were “unenforceable,” because they were “unconscionable” The warranty was unconscionable because the arbitration language was broad and did not “clearly and unmistakably” reserve the sole authority to decide whether the arbitration provision was enforceable to the arbitrator. The arbitration provision was procedurally unconscionable because it was hidden in a booklet not available when Baker executed the warranty application.
It was substantively unconscionable because it was solely intended to benefit Osborne, as Osborne would have no reason to sue Baker after the close of escrow. In NCR Corp. v. Korala Associates, Ltd., (2008), the court of Appeals weighed the issue by determining the scope of the arbitration agreement based on the reason that a party should not be compelled to arbitrate a dispute which it has not agreed to arbitrate. To determine whether or not a case is arbitrable, the Sixth Circuit looked at the allegations in each count of the complaint to determine whether the agreement was a necessary part of each claim.
Order custom essay Baker v. Osborne Legal Review with free plagiarism report
450+ experts on 30 subjects
Starting from 3 hours delivery
The standard used by the Sixth Circuit was this; whether “an action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship issue”. If it could, then it is likely to be outside the scope of the arbitration agreement. Going by the Court decisions in Baker and NCR, the homeowners are not bound by the arbitration clause, and are therefore free to pursue damages in a court of law.
Cite this Page
Baker v. Osborne Legal Review. (2016, Jul 19). Retrieved from https://phdessay.com/baker-v-osborne-legal-review/
Run a free check or have your essay done for you
