Baker v. Osborne Legal Review

Thomas bread maker and others bought new homes from Osborne learning Corp. The new homeowners afterwards filed a guardianship 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. Baker and the other homeowners had on with the home purchases signed a builder application form containing the interest linguistic communication CONSENT TO THE TERMS OF THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE BINDING ARBITRATION PROVISION contained therein. By signing the application, the homeowners were presumed to have agreed to the terms of the warranty. (Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. , 2008). The question present is whether the new homeowners ar bound by the arbitration agreement they signed, or whether they could just sue Osborne Development Corp. in court. The Fourth Appellate territory of the California Court of Appeal answered both questions i n its 2008 decision when it held that arbitration provisions in the HBW 2-10 warranty were unenforceable, because they were conscienceless. The warranty was unconscionable because the arbitration language was broad and did non clearly and unmistakably reserve the sole imprimatur 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 make full of escrow. In NCR Corp. v. Korala Associates, Ltd., (2008), the court of Appeals weighed the issue by determining the stretch 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 shape whether or not a case is arbitrable, the 6th Circuit looked at the allegations in each count of the complaint to determine whether the agreement was a necessary part of each claim. The standard used by the Sixth Circuit was this whether an action could be maintained without reference to the contract or relationship issue (NCR Corp.v. Korala Associates, Ltd. , 2008, p. 4). 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 vindicate to pursue damages in a court of law. References Baker v. Osborne Development Corp. (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 884 Cal. Rptr. 3d NCR Corp. v. Korala Associates, Ltd. , No. 06-3685, 2008 WL 140978 (6th Cir. Jan. 16, 2008)