The court rejected the petition and denied the only denial that Marcus and Millichap was not a signatory to the sales contract. A party that opposes arbitration may raise fraud as a defence. (Rosenthal v. Great Western Fin. Securities Corp. (2006) 14 Cal.4th 394, 415 (Rosenthal).) “California law distinguishes between fraud in the performance or introduction of a contract and fraud in the “incentive” of a contract. In short, in the first case, “fraud goes to the introduction or execution of the agreement, so that the promisor is deceived about the nature of his act, and does not really know what he signs, or does not want to enter into a contract, mutual consent is not lacking, and [the contract] is non-admitted. In such a case, it can be ignored without the need to resign. “Incentive fraud, on the other hand, occurs when ” the promisor knows what he has signed, but his consent is induced by fraud, mutual consent is in place and a contract is formed because of fraud, is invalid. To escape its obligations, the aggrieved party must clean up. ` (Ibid., citation omitted)” Note: By starting in the room below, you agree that all litigation arising from the cases contained in the “dispute arbitration” provision that is decided by neutral arbitration, as required by California law, and that you waive all rights you may have to bring the case before a court or jury. By initializing in the space below, you will give your legal rights to discovery and appeal.
Your consent to this arbitration decision is voluntary. 5. Section 1298, Subdivision (c) provides: “Just before the line or space, which is made available to the parties to indicate their consent or non-consent to arbitration [in a sale or list of property agreement] described in the subdivision (a) or (b) and, immediately after that arbitration decision, it is appropriate to present itself as follows :` NOTICE: AS PROVIDED BY CALIFORNIA LAW AND YOU ARE GIVING ANY RIGHTS YOU MIGHT POSSESS TO HAVE THE DISPUTE LITIGATED IN A COURT OR TRIAL JURY.