Ethics and Law Research Essay

The paper includes a review of case 8.3, Vassilkovska v. Woodfield

In which Nadejda Vassilkovska sued Woodfield after buying a used car from him. Notably, the two parties created a separate arrangement from the purchase contract in which Vassilkovska agreed to arbitrate any claims against Woodfield rather than file a lawsuit.

However, Woodfield agreed to act as Vassilkovska’s mediator but barred a number of various kinds of requests for the agreement. Surprisingly, the only situations in which the seller would ever be likely to sue the buyer were the excluded claims.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Woodfield after the vendor misrepresented the price, but Woodfield countered that Vassilkovska was supposed to arbitrate the dispute. Therefore, the court was expected to rule and determine whether the arbitration agreement was valid.

Facts

The following events were evident from the case presented. Firstly, the plaintiff represented by Vassilkovska had bought the car from Woodfield, and they had subsequently signed a document under the title Arbitration Agreement and had promised to arbitrate any claim against Woodfield instead of suing in court.

Secondly, the plaintiff felt later that the law abiding finance agreement has misleading terms and finally, the plaintiff sued the Woodfield for misrepresenting the price of the car in a financing agreement.

Thirdly, the defendant who is represented by Woodfield had promised to arbitrate all the claims against Vassilkovska but excluded the claims that were the only circumstances in which Woodfield would ever likely sue the customer.

Finally, the arbitration agreement contained no promise on Woodsfield’s part to submit claims to arbitration.

Issues

From the case that was presented the task was for the court to determine whether the arbitration agreement was valid and if the plaintiff had any sovereign rights to sue the defendant in a court of law.

Ruling

After extensive considerations, the court found that there was no consideration for Vassilkovska’s agreement to arbitrate. Secondly, the court lacked attention from the Woodfield since it had exempted itself from arbitrating all conceivable claims against the plaintiff.

Analysis

The contract that the two parties drafted was a quasi- contract since it was meant to advantage one party and disadvantage the other unfairly. The defendant had all his issues and concerns covered in the agreement, but the plaintiff’s interest was not fully covered (Gunning & Holm, 2013).

Woodfield ensured that in the case of any possible breach of contract between the two parties he would be on the winning end. Notably, even though the court may nullify the arbitration agreement, it should imply a duty on the defendant to ensure that he pays the plaintiff. The act is a legal solution to ensure that all the conflicting parties have received unjust treatment.

Woodfield’s intentions of drafting the agreement were not ethical since the defendant did not follow the dignity and the integrity of the arbitrating process. He ensured that all his interests were well covered in the agreement, and those of the other party are partially taken into account.

The exemptions he included where the customer can be sued represented the only instances that he can take the client to court. The other ethical consideration is that the plaintiff did not have the competence to arbitrate in the matter at hand (Wines, 2015). She could have identified the loopholes in the arbitration agreement and decline to make it legally binding.

Remarkably, there was a conflict of interest between the two parties since all the matters required by law were not fully disclosed. Finally, the integrity of the arbitration agreement was questionable since all the parties were not clear on a potential conflict of interest.

Remedies

There are several remedies that the Vassilkovska may seek if Woodfield was proved to misrepresent the cost of the motor vehicle. Firstly, he has the option of appealing to the court to consider the implied- in law and force the defendant to pay misrepresented the amount of money in the agreement if Woodfield had already received the invoice (Gunning, Holm & Kenway, 2012).

Secondly, Vassilkovska has the option of suing woodland for breach of contract since their arbitration process was based on utmost good faith, but the defendant went against the issue.

In conclusion

If an arbitration process is involved, the due process as stipulated in the constitution should be followed. The arbitration ethics and guidelines should be followed to the letter, and any party found guilty of breaching the contract should be dealt with by the provisions of the law.

References

Gunning, J., & Holm, S. (2013). Ethics, law and society. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.

Gunning, J., Holm, S., & Kenway, I. (2012). Ethics, law and society. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Wines, W. (2015). Ethics, law, and business. Mahwah, NJ [u.a.]: Erlbaum.