Answer:
The main point here on the appeal would be the fact that the Sherrods decided to stay silent on the last offer made by the Kidds to settle the situation, and rather decided to go ahead and look for a mandatory arbitration. When the Sherrods did that, the Kidds might have understood that they were not accepting their offer for 34.000 dollars and preffered to settle for the result of the mandatory arbitration, which established the price at 25.000 dollars.
Another point is that there was a big time lapse between the last offer made by the Kidds to settle with the Sherrods and their communicating that they would go for that final settlement offer, especially after the mandatory arbitration had already established a new price. This time lapse should also be taken in favor of the Kidds in their appeal
Finally, the matter should have ended when the final decision for the arbitration was given
So it should be expected that on appeal the decision reached in the mandatory arbritration be upheld, instead of the new sum which was initially assumed not accepted by the Sherrods when they went through with the arbitration.
the lender holds onto the title until the vehicle is payed in-full
