Baker v. Development Corp

494 Words2 Pages
Case Analysis: Baker v Osborne Development Corporation Amelia Smith LS311-06 Business Law Kaplan University February 14, 2012 The new homeowners would be able to sue the homebuilder, Osborne Development Corporation. The California Court of Appeals found that the trial court’s decision was correct and that the arbitration agreement was both procedurally and substantively unconscionable thus making the arbitration agreement unenforceable. The reason that the trial courts found the arbitration agreement was procedurally substantively unconscionable was the fact that the agreement was not present in the terms of any of the contracts between the buyer and the builder. The homebuyers were not given the application of warranty by HBW until about a day or so before the scheduled close of escrow and the terms of the arbitration agreement were not present within the application. NCR Corporation v Korala Associates was a case that was concerning the unauthorized copying of computer software by KAL. Both of these companies had entered into a agreement in 1998, that stated that any dispute over software would be submitted for arbitration. NCR did not submit their complaints for arbitration; instead they tried to sue in District Court and after the District Court ruled in favor of KAL, they appealed the decision. The US Court of Appeals also ruled in favor of KAL. Both courts ruled that the arbitration agreement of 1998 was both procedurally and conscionable in its terms and enforceable, meaning that the dispute fell under the terms of the agreement. Viewing this case through ethical reasoning, whether it is through duty based ethics or out-come based ethics, it is clear that there is an incredible lack of ethical duty on Osborne Development Corporation’s part. Duty based ethics include the principal of rights, a key factor in determining whether a

More about Baker v. Development Corp

Open Document