Forum

Notifications
Clear all

Alternatives dispute resolution

11 Posts
11 Users
0 Likes
1,267 Views
(@jp582)
Posts: 51
Trusted Member
Topic starter
 

Hello Everyone,
As we all have little idea of legal aspects and how it works. We know outside of court settlement is best option which saves time and money, get more privacy and become less stressful. There are two types of alternative dispute resolution which I think works better such as
Arbitration- Arbitrators are usually retired judge and senior lawyers. Arbitration follows the same process as in court; it makes a decision based on evidence but less formal way.
Mediation- Mediation is generally dispute by neutral third party. Mediation does not issue orders, attempts to limit the issues, urges parties to talk to each other, helps them negotiates, suggests solution and finally persuades them to accept a specific resolution. The parties do not reach a resolution unless all sides agree.
What are the other methods of out of court dispute resolution works best and why?

 
Posted : 01/12/2016 7:23 pm
(@sjm39)
Posts: 15
Active Member
 

I believe you mentioned the two biggest methods but another method out of court dispute resolution is just negotiating. This is the most basic means of settling a dispute and usually the first option. Negotiating can be conducted between the two parties or by a lawyer on behalf of a party. There are many benefits to settling a court dispute this way including; quick and inexpensive, voluntary, private and confidential, negotiated agreements can be enforceable, and it can end in a win-win solution. When negotiating does not work and the two sides can not come to an agreement that is when one side will usually pursue arbitration or mediation or even court if needed.

 
Posted : 02/12/2016 8:18 am
 hg93
(@hg93)
Posts: 15
Active Member
 

Hi,

Here are other few, out of court dispute resolutions which are referred to as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).

Minitrials

A minitrial is a process by which the attorneys for the parties present a short version of the case to a panel, often comprised of the clients themselves and a neutral intermediary who chairs the process. Expert witnesses (and less frequently, lay witnesses) may be used in presenting the case. After the presentation, the clients, typically top management representatives who by now are more aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, attempt to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. If a negotiated settlement is not reached, the parties may allow the intermediary to mediate the conflict or render a non-binding advisory opinion regarding the likely outcome of the case were it to be tried in civil court.

Summary Jury Trials

Summary jury trials are an ADR technique used primarily in federal courts, where they provide parties with the opportunity to "try" their cases before an advisory panel of jurors, without having to face the final and possibly adverse decision of a regular jury in civil court. The purpose of the summary jury trial is to facilitate pretrial termination of cases in which a significant impediment to negotiation is disagreement between the attorneys or parties regarding a civil jury's likely findings on liability or damages in the case.

 
Posted : 03/12/2016 5:51 pm
 nda4
(@nda4)
Posts: 19
Active Member
 

In addition to what has been stated, I'd like to add:

Neutral Evaluation
In neutral evaluation, each party gets a chance to present the case to a neutral person called an "evaluator." The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's evidence and arguments and about how the dispute could be resolved. The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Although the evaluator's opinion is not binding, the parties typically use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Be Appropriate
Neutral evaluation may be most appropriate in cases in which there are technical issues that require special expertise to resolve or the only significant issue in the case is the amount of damages.

Cases for Which Neutral Evaluation May Not Be Appropriate
Neutral evaluation may not be appropriate when there are significant personal or emotional barriers to resolving the dispute.

 
Posted : 03/12/2016 6:41 pm
 ial4
(@ial4)
Posts: 54
Trusted Member
 

Hi,

A very interesting topic. I agree with the benefit mentioned above for the out-of-court dispute resolution.
Why we are settle out of court
1.An independent, neutral third person (a "neutral") listens to the facts from all sides and tries to focus on the core issues.
2.A law or court order might require the parties to use ADR.

I also attach a link below showing how effective is alternative dispute resolution.
Source :- http://siteresources.worldbank.org/FINANCIALSECTOR/Resources/282044-1307652042357/VP329-Setting-out-of-court.pdf

 
Posted : 03/12/2016 8:06 pm
(@grzegorzgalka)
Posts: 15
Active Member
 

I would like to write a story about the out of court dispute resolution which happened in my company. It would give an idea what mistakes and negotiation can be used in similar cases. So, my company is electromechanical supplier for the US army and many times we make very specific assembly. In this case the estimation was done for the whole BOM. During the purchasing one of the coworkers lost number 2 in the part number for the long cable. The vendor also had similar part without the 2 and that what they sent. The difference was that they sent same cable just much shorter. The part was non-returnable and the purchase was final ($10,000). President of the company wanted to return it and they decided that they will accept it for 50% of the price. So my company sent them the letter that they can agree on 25% loss, since the mistake was on both sides. The estimation was done for the right part and the purchase was done for the wrong one. Of course even that we received the short cable we paid as for the long one. After sending them the letter with all the facts they agreed to take only 25%. So, in my opinion if you can present good documentation supporting your case you can win out of court dispute resolution.

 
Posted : 03/12/2016 8:55 pm
(@ds654)
Posts: 15
Active Member
 

Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) refers to techniques used to resolve conflicts without going to the courtroom. As healthcare and malpractice costs continue to rise, there is growing interest in tactics such as early apology, mediation, and arbitration in the medical arena. A major obstacle to more widespread use of ADR in the medical malpractice field is the National Practitioner’s Data Bank (NPDB). The problem with the NPDB is that it discourages the efficient settlement of nonnegligence cases. The vast majority of malpractice cases filed do not contain negligence. Patients often sue as a result of emotional reasons or as a result of unrealized expectations. It would be inefficient for both parties to thoroughly litigate such a case.

The following is the link to the reviwed article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314770/

 
Posted : 04/12/2016 7:44 pm
(@kc377)
Posts: 8
Active Member
 

Grzegorz Galka I think your example raises a very relevant, interesting real world example to settling disputes outside of a court. I think many companies, and people for that matter, try to get the most out of every situation. The company that sent the part of course was going to try and get as much money out of the mistake as possible, but there is usually some wiggle room. Most would rather negotiate then to refuse and potentially lose a customer over it.

Kaitlin Connell

 
Posted : 08/12/2016 3:15 pm
(@gp232njit-edu)
Posts: 25
Eminent Member
 

Collaborative law is another form of alternative dispute resolution. This resolution relates to resolution between married couples who have elected to separate or divorce and avoid going to court for a settlement. The process of collaborative law is cost effective for both parties as they are assigned a specialist to help them settle their case. Collaborative law also helps avoid litigation. The process is voluntary by both parties and is initiated when both parties sign a “participation agreement” which is binding to the process and disqualifies their lawyer’s right to represent them in litigation.

 
Posted : 14/12/2016 6:05 am
(@rv395)
Posts: 36
Eminent Member
 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) can be effective because they are speedy than going to courtroom and also reduces the cost. Moreover the result can be kept confidential in ADR whereas most court trials and are open to the public. 

Another type of ADR is Settlement conference which is a less formal type of a trial. The parties will meet with the "neutral person" to discuss a possible settlement for their dispute which usually involves money. The judge will not make a decision but will assist the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of their case.

ADR procedure are gaining popularity cause they allow the parties to understand everyone's position and create a solution that works for both of them.

 
Posted : 22/11/2020 4:51 pm
(@nikhil-nagarjun)
Posts: 78
Trusted Member
 

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a spectrum of less costly and more expeditious alternatives to litigation, where a neutral party assists the disputing parties in reaching resolution. ADR allows for more creative and collaborative solutions than that of traditional litigation.

 
Posted : 25/11/2020 9:39 pm
Share: