Arbitration processes are formally used in resolving of disputes around the world that involve commerce between the different nations. The process is normally encouraged and preferred in the resolving of cases and has to be adhered to if the two or more parties involved agreed to use the arbitration process in the signed contract. The decisions by the arbiter in these cases are thus enforceable under the federal law and the state. It has to be remembered that in certain occurrences the arbitration terms may be burdensome to either party thus making the arbitration clause unenforceable (Meyer, 2003).
In this case, Randolph does not prevail to have the case resolved in the federal court as opposed to the arbitration court only due to the fact that Green Tree’s lacked in the provision of adequate disclosure of the fees that relates to the loan provides her a leeway and a meaningful choice not to honor the contract and have the case resolved in the arbitration court and have to claim unconscionability. Randolph had a 30 day period to thoroughly examine the contents of the contract and have raise queries on all the agreement terms and that which relate to the loan fee. Green Tree met all the terms and conditions to have the terms and conditions of the contract to be binding by having the condition to waive any dispute resolution modes outside the arbitration court in print. This implies that the court has to be settled in the arbitration court as per the agreement and waive all the possibilities to have the dispute solved in the federal court.
In the case involving AutoNation USA Corporation v, Leroy, the trial court was not justified in the ruling as the Leroy was not only bound to the arbitration court process by the purchasing contract, but also the installment contract as purchasing as defined is the actual process and activities involved in the acquisition of a particular product from a seller by a buyer. The terms of agreement are enlisted as the part of the purchasing process as without which, the product will not be purchased. The arbitration process that was preferred by the seller stands and is able to serve the interests that are put across by Leroy in relation to the customers being overcharged as a result of a computer error.
The reasons given by the plaintiff in resorting to the federal court process are not justified, as he would be given a chance in the arbitration court to place arguments in relation to the overcharging case. The plaintiff does not provide any instance or condition that will have the case to be burdensome on him. The facts presented the plaintiff, however, do not point out the purchasing and payment terms contract as being separate entities contracts as they relate to the some product (Roger and Hollowell, 2010). It is thus not justifiable to have a ruling on the case to be resolved outside the arbitration court as stipulated in the purchasing contract. It is vital to note that the purchasing contract also includes the terms of payment available for the acquiring of the product that is on sale (Meyer, 2003).