Unit 2 Assignment: Case Analysis, Baker V Osborne Development Corp.

Course: LS311: Business Law I

Instructor: Prof. Jeffery Hazard

Unit 2 Assignment: Case Analysis

Name: Bridget Otoja

Date: 11/13/2012

As we read the complete court document concerning Baker v Osborne Development Corp., 159 Cal.App.4th 884.71 Cal Rptr.3d 854 (2008), you quickly realize this is not a clear cut open and shut case. There are several statements and circumstances within the document, as well as the court's summation that makes us say that the new homeowners have a right to sue the builder, and the cases in question may not be bound by arbitration.

I am far from an expert in law but I will admit this case is very intriguing and the courts had their hands full assuring the right decisions were made. While the NCR case is used as a base of how arbitration was called and the results thereof, the case of Baker v Osborne is quite different. Both are cases of arbitration but the results are different. One upholds the Supreme Court decision that claims that when you challenge the entire agreement it must go to arbitration, but those that challenge the agreement to arbitrate the validity of an agreement must go to court.

According to the Court of Appeal in Californian, 4th Appellate District, the motion to deny Osborne's appeal to compel arbitration was upheld. The court found several discrepancies in the testimony as well as in the documents presented by Osborne Development Corp. to make the decision that no arbitration will be called in the matter thus opening the door for all homeowners involved, including Thomas Baker, the right to sue the developer for the defects and problems with their homes. In addition, the California Appeals Court concluded the trial court correctly ruled that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable. The homeowners could sue the builder, Osborne in court. The new homeowners would be able to sue the homebuilder, Osborne Development...