In the case study of, Baker v. Osborne Development Corp., the new homeowners would not be bound by the arbitration agreement and that they can sue the builder. Baker was able to sue Osborne for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of implied and express warranties stemming from the construction of a home. The contract of purchase given to the homeowner did not contain an arbitration agreement, but the documentation accompanying an express warranty on the home did contain an arbitration agreement.

The arbitration agreement was not binding on the homeowners. Osborne signed the contract with HBW not the homeowner. Because of that it did not bind the homeowners to the agreement because they were not parties to the agreement. The appeals court held the arbitration agreement to be “oppression” against the homeowners and that the agreements were one-sided and unconscionable. The homeowners were given the warranty agreement paper at the time of closing on their houses and were unaware of the terms of the warranty. They did not give up their right to sue Osborne for breach of contract and other claims. The courts found in the warranty/arbitration agreement that one provision of the agreement reserved questions of enforceability to the arbitrator, while another provision indicated that courts would have some authority to find terms of the agreement unenforceable. With that the Court found that "the arbitration agreement did not 'clearly and unmistakably' reserve to the arbitrator the issue of whether the arbitration agreement was enforceable." In this case the court in favor of Baker. Almost the same ruling applied in the case study of NCR Corporation v. Korala Associates Ltd., finding inconsistencies in the contracts/agreements and only one company/party having knowledge of agreements and not the other, making the agreement(s) non-binding to the plaintiff. The