Case Analysis of Compton vs.

Merlotte Background During Bill Comptons third year of employment, Compton signed a revision to the employee handbook as well as the inclusion of a binding arbitration agreement. Compton signed a waiver agreeing to abide by the provisions of the handbook and arbitration agreement. Bill continued employment and was subsequently terminated. Compton sued Merlotte alleging claims of unfair dismissal. Analysis Merlotte and Compton entered into the arbitration agreement voluntarily and was not imposed by any parties. As the case description stands as read, the court should not hear Bills claim that he was unfairly dismissed from employment. There are a few considerations that the court should contemplate prior to deferring their judgment to hear the case: 1. Was there a legal offer (intent to enter into the agreement and was it communicated from the offerer to the offeree?) 2. Was the offer reasonable or definite and not open-ended and ambiguous (reference to a subject matter, quantity, and price if applicable?) 3. Was the intended offer presented by way of communication to Bill Compton? According to Bagley and Savage (2010), an arbitration clause may list names of potential arbitrators. There is no mention of potential arbitrators in the description. There is no mention of the number and type of arbitrators to be chosen for the parties as mentioned by Bagley and Savage (2010). Bagley and Savage also state that parties should specify in the agreement the types of issues and disputes to be resolved through arbitration (pg.90). Although the description mentions employment disputes, there are no specific issues mentioned. There is no mention of who will arbitrate the dispute, scope of discovery, and limits on damages. All of the essential questions and issues surrounding the binding agreement were performed, seem absolute and unconditional making the arbitration agreement binding. There was no change in the agreement. The written waiver is evidence that the Compton participated in the communication, acceptance, and agreement of the contract. Comptons signing of the waiver was a evidence to his volition. Merlotte has no reason to suspect that the contract was qualified and complete. Compton received something to sign from Merlotte. Compton continued to work there after signing clause which shows agreement. This shows Compton's agreement with the clause.
Should the Court hear Bills claim or is he bound by the arbitration agreement? Discuss the pros and cons and be sure to refer to the law in your textbook to support your views.

No, the court should not hear Bills claim. Bill Compton should be bound to the arbitration agreement. References:

Kubasek, N, Brennan, B, & Brown, N. (2005). The legal environment of business: a thinking approach. 4th edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall: Bagley, C, Savage, D. 2010. Managers and the legal environment: strategies for the 21st century. 6th edition. Mason, Ohio: Southwestern Cengage Learning. There are a few considerations that the court should contemplate prior to deferring their judgment to hear the case: 4. Was there a legal offer (intent to enter into the agreement and was it communicated from the offerer to the offeree?) 5. Was the offer reasonable or definite and not open-ended and ambiguous (reference to a subject matter, quantity, and price if applicable?) 6. Was the intended offer presented by way of communication to Bill Compton? Was there a legal acceptance (offer) and intent to agree? According to Kubasek et al (2006) defines legal acceptance as an acceptance that shows objective intent to enter into the contract , that is communicated by proper means to the offeror, and that mirrors the terms of the offer (pg. 268) .There was a legal acceptance by Bill Compton to acknowledge the objective intent and subject matter of the agreement which was to settle by binding arbitration. Compton read, understood and signed the agreement with Merlotte. There was intent to accept shown by Compton. There was an intent communicated by proper means. The intent satisfied and mirrored the offer. There is no notice of deception. Was the offer reasonable or definite? There is no reason to assume that the parties involved did not mean for the agreement to be binding at once. Compton understood and the fact that he signed an agreement shows intent was definite and immediate upon signature of agreement. Was the offer communicated to Bill Compton? Merlotte advised its employees of the specific changes to the handbook terms and required all employees to sign waivers. Agreement was communicated to Compton. There is no reason to suspect that there was deception in communication. 7. Was Bill discharged in accordance with organization policy and procedures and not in violation of any Human Rights? 8. Did the parties agree to arbitrate?