100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 3 out of 3 pages.
a bad reputation over their brands or company as well as for people who wants to settle small dispute in a much easier way. Mediation also saves time, and it works in a flexible way as the three parties involved can fix a schedule that is convenient for them. Of course, there can be cons as well, where least professional mediators, such as mediators who are new in this field, can take up a case and may not be able to conduct a settlement properly. Mediators can also be bias, due to past experience. Furthermore, mediation cannot resolute all disputes.Next, Arbitration. Similar to mediation, arbitration occurs in a private room and not in a court. Thisrelieves parties from the stress of a court scene. Parties are entitled to choose their own tribunal, which would be someone professional and has a certain degree to expertise in the disputing parties. Unlike mediation, in arbitration, one party wins and one loses. The arbitrator could be bias in this case as well, which could be an advantage to some parties and a failing end to others. If this occurs, this case will most likely end up in court. Cost is a disadvantage in arbitration as even if the dispute is not settled, the parties are required to pay an arbitrator fee, ontop of the cost of lawsuitThirdly, conciliation. Similar to the previous two alternate dispute resolutions, privacy is attained through this method. A conciliator is appointed to resolve the dispute. This method bares the same pros like the other methods. However, the main downside is that it relies on the parties accepting the authority of the conciliator and wanting to achieve a resolution. If either of them agrees on the settlement, it still ends up in court which results to waste of time and money.Lastly, we have Litigation. This is a commonly used option. This can also be considered as a competition held in court and authorized by the law, with the intention to enforce a right. Entering a civil lawsuit is called, litigation. The pros of litigation, no biasness will be present as it involves court decision and proceedings which are formal, fair and based on legal rights. As it is held in public, juries can voice out providing their views and opinions regarding the case. After which, thejudge will finally make his decision by law. However, for the con, litigation can be extremely expensive, as the parties will have to hire a lawyer, in addition to that, they have to pay the court fees. Lawsuits also takes a much longer period of time, which could drag from months to even years.ConclusionIn conclusion, since there was no enforceable contract made, Bernard can take no legal action against Alan. Similarly, Charleen will not be able to take any legal action against Alan, as she is aminor and there was no verbal agreement made as well, leaving Damien the only party who can take legal actions against Alan as he suffered a loss through their contract and he also can sue Alan for misrepresentation of false fact regarding the reliability of these materials and rescind the contract.