Case Study: Detailed Analysis of Sherrod vs. Kidd [2007] Legal Case

This case study analyzes the case of Sherrod vs. Kidd, focusing on the legal issues surrounding a settlement offer after an arbitration award. The case involves a personal injury claim resulting from a dog bite, leading to an arbitration process. The central question revolves around the validity of a settlement offer after an arbitration award is issued. The court examines the reasonableness of time in accepting the offer and ultimately rules that the settlement offer is no longer viable after the arbitration award, as the arbitration award is final and binding. The analysis includes a review of relevant case law, such as Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Vs. Columbus Rolling Mill, and highlights the reasoning behind the court's decision, emphasizing that the passage of the arbitration award changed the circumstances and thus the time for accepting the offer had expired. The document provides a comprehensive overview of the case, including the parties involved, the procedural history, the legal issues, the court's holding, and the reasoning behind the decision. The study also provides a bibliography with relevant case laws.

Running Head: CASE STUDY
Sherrod vs. Kid [2007] No.25498-4-III
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

1CASE STUDY
CASE NAME:
The name of the case is Sherrod vs. Kidd [2007] No.25498-4-III.
PARTIES:
The parties to the case are Mikaila Sherrod, who is represented by her guardian ad litem,
Jennifer Catone as the respondents and Elizabeth Kidd, husband and wife as the appellants to the
case.
RELEVANT FACTS:
The appellant had a dog and it bit the respondents. Thus, the claim for personal injury has
been made. However, the respondents were agreed for the settlement but the appellants opted for
arbitration. The compensation offered in the arbitral award was less than the offer made by the
defendant for the settlement. Therefore, the appellant opted for the acceptance of the settlement
offer. Thus, the proceedings were held for the validity of the settlement offer after the arbitral
award has been passed.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
The respondents relied upon the decision of the case1 that quoted Minneapolis & St.
Louis Ry. Vs. Columbus Rolling Mill2 based on section 41 of Restatement (Second) of Contracts
1981, explaining that the acceptance of the offer should be in a reasonable time (if the time limit
for the acceptance is not specified), and hence, the settlement offer was revoked when the
arbitral award was passed because the reasonable time to accept the offer was gone. However,
1 Brown Bros. Lumber Co. v. Preston Mill Co., (1915) 83 Wash
2 (1886) 119 U.S

2CASE STUDY
the appellant contended that the trial court did not take into consideration the settlement offer
while passing the award.
LEGAL ISSUES:
The issue in the case is whether the settlement offer is viable after the arbitration award
has been passed.
The second issue is regarding the quantum of reasonability of time.
HOLDING OF COURT:
The court held that the settlement offer shall not be viable after the arbitral award is
passed because of the reasonability of time to accept the offer.
The reasonability of time shall depend on the position of the parties which changed after
the award was passed.
REASONING:
The reason was that the offer for settlement expired after the arbitral award was passed.
Arbitration award is final and binding on the parties at par with the decision of the court. Court’s
decision cannot be defied after it has been passed.

3CASE STUDY
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Case Laws:
Brown Bros. Lumber Co. v. Preston Mill Co., (1915) 83 Wash
Minneapolis & St. Louis Ry. Vs. Columbus Rolling Mill (1886) 119 U.S