Question

David Kidd’s dog bit Mikaila Sherrod. On June 14, 2010, the Kidds offered to settle for $32,000. On July 12 the Sherrods sued the Kidds. On July 20 the Kidds bumped their offer up to $34,000. The suit was subject to mandatory arbitration, which proceeded on April 28, 2011. On May 5 the arbitrator awarded the Sherrods $25,000. On May 9 the Sherrods wrote to the Kidds and purported to accept their last offer of $34,000, made the year before. The Sherrods’ attorney moved to enforce that purported $34,000 "settlement agreement." The court concluded that the offer was properly accepted because it had not been withdrawn and entered judgment against the Kidds for $34,000. The Kidds appealed. What result should obtain on appeal, and why?

Answer 1

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.