Business Law Case Brief - Essay Example

Business Law Case Brief Plaintiff and Defendant: The plaintiff is an investment firm called Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. The defendant is Karen Howsam who was an investment client of Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. The plaintiff Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc advised Karen to invest in four limited partnerships owned by him. Facts:In 1994, Karen closed all the four accounts and moved to other investment companies. Karen claimed that Dean Witter had been issuing false information regarding the performance of the investments.

When still a customer to Dean Witter, Howsam and Dean Witter had entered into an agreement that stated that any dispute arising in there dealing would ill be resolved by arbitration. Karen Howsam had a right to choose the arbitrator. Karen Howsam decided to forward the case to the national association of security dealers for arbitration. NASD’S codes of the allowed arbitration procedure stipulate that no dispute is eligible for submission once there is a lapse of six years. The plaintiff, Dean Witter Reynolds, filed a complaint to the federal district court asking the court to declare the case ineligible.

Dean Witter further asked the court to block the defendant Karen Howsam from filing for arbitration. He cited the lapsed six years as a basis for the illegibility. Lower Court:The court dismissed Dean Witter’s case and stated that the arbitrator had a legal duty to study and interpret the NASD rule and put it into proper application.Issue Appealed:On the appeal of the case, the court of appeal looked into the district court ruling that they had no right to interpret and apply the existing NASD rule.

The court of appeal for the tenth circuit reversed the district court rule. It stated that the case had abitrability concept, and the court had a right to rule on the time limit provision. They held that the arbitrator had to apply the time limit rule in the underlying dispute.Who wins? Dean Witter, Inc won when the tenth circuit reversed the decision made by the district court.Reasoning:According to Henry (2009), the arbitrator may decide on cases that are substantive in their nature while the court rules on cases that are procedural.

The court ordinarily may rule on the question of abitrability. Justice Stephen G Beyer delivered the ruling based on the opinion of various judges. The judges agreed that the NASD rule on the time limit was a matter to be decided on by the arbitrator presumptively. The issue did not raise a question of abitrability that could call for resolving by the judiciary. NASD’s time limit rule falls within a class of the gateway procedural disputes that do not present abitrability.The question of abitrability can only be ruled by the judiciary unless the parties have a provision stating clearly otherwise.

It has a limited scope and, can only be applicable in few circumstances where the contracting party’s would have expected the court to have made a decision According Dean Witter’s the contracts call for judicial rule was not persuasive. The NASD arbitrators are better experienced and have the expertise of interpreting there rules and applying them. They came up with rules governing the arbitration process and should, hold superior experience in interpretation. Without indication; otherwise, it may be assumed that the parties inferred that the decision be made by the NASD arbitrators.

Reference:Cheeseman, H. (2009). Business law: New Jersey: Pearson Education.