Termite Gone, Inc. contracts with Brynn, a homeowner, regarding a contract that guarantees no infestation of termites for 30 years during the life of the contract. The contract contains an arbitration provision. In year 5 of the contract, Brynn finds extensive termite infestation in her home. Brynn sues Termite Gone, Inc. in court, but Termite Gone, Inc. claims the parties must go to arbitration due to the arbitration provision of the contract.
Who is correct and why? Does the case go to arbitration or does it stay in court?

Termite Gone, Inc. is correct because of the arbitration clause in the contract. the arbitration clause requires that all parties must resolve their disputes before an arbitrator rather than a court.

The case will definitely go to the arbitration and will NOT stay in the court because of the arbitration clause that was included in the contract.

Explanation:

The binding arbitration is a contract  that requires the parties involved in a dispute to resolve contract disputes before an arbitrator rather than through the court system. It is essential because the binding arbitration may require the parties to waive some rights, which may include their ability to appeal a decision.

The validity of an arbitration provision is based on contract law,such agreement is unconscionable, but a court will not assume that an agreement is unenforceable just because the consumer did not read the contract very well before signing.

i dont think so i think its more a lot of people i know failed the first time

explanation: