Brief Sherrod v. Kidd

Brief Sherrod v. Kidd - allowed to be accepted History The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Cameron Hartman 9/17/09 Seat # 59 SHERROD v. KIDD Facts: David and Elizabeth Kidd's dog big Mikaila Sherrod, who then made a claim for damages via her guardian ad litem (GAL). Mikaila, after being offered a $31,837 claim, sued the Kidds, which caused the Kidds to increase their claim offer to $32,843. This case called for a mandatory arbitration, where the arbitrator awarded Mikaila $25,069.47. After this, the GAL wrote the Kidds accepting their previous offer of $32,843. The plaintiff and defendant disagreed about whether or not the offer was still
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: allowed to be accepted. History: The case was brought to trial court, where the judge ruled that the offer was not withdrawn, thus properly accepted. Issue: Was the previous offer by the Kidd's still valid at the time of acceptance? Decision: No. The trial court's decision was reversed. Reasons: When the arbitrator announced the award, the previous offer expired and not subject to acceptance....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 09/17/2011 for the course BLAW 300 taught by Professor King during the Spring '11 term at University of Phoenix.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online