Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) became common during the 1980s.It was widely adopted by over 600 large organizations that aimed tosolve their disputes out of court. The method of solving cases out ofcourt proved beneficial due limited cost and time involved. ADR haspersisted until today, where it is applied in various cases such asthe case involving Mark Zuckerberg the Facebook founder, Camron andTyler Winklevoss in the year 2008. The paper discusses why settling acase out of court is essential, issues that cannot benefit from ADRand reasons when the court seem reluctant to reopen settlements.
KeyReasons why Settling out of Court is Good
Cases conducted outof court take less time to achieve firm resolutions. The processapplied out of court rarely provides a chance for an appeal, whichensures limited time is consumed. Cases conducted out of court have ahigh degree of flexibility. Since they are based on mutual agreement,the parties involved are able to determine the level of evidencerequired, rules to follow and the manner to interrogate thewitnesses. ADR cases are less costly due to compressed schedule andabsence of pre-trials, common in courts and that demand morewitnesses. Corporations that choose ADR are able to seek for qualityarbitrators such as in the case of Zuckerberg, Tyler, and Cameron asopposed to court when a case hearing may be assigned to variousjudges affecting the quality of the final decision. In addition, ADRis not restricted by evidence and the rule of law applied in court.The person presiding cases makes a verdict based equity or fairnessand not necessarily the rule of law. As a result, ADR has manyadvantages and should be utilized in minor cases.
Issuesthat Cannot Benefit from ADR
ADR is not effectivewhere power differences exist. For instance, a case involving anindividual and a company or the local authority can best be ruled bythe court. Large organizations can utilize resources to suppress theless powerful. Cases out of court do not suit urgent cases. Forinstance, when a company is threatened with closure by the localgovernment, the court is more preferable. In the case where lowercompensation amount is perceived, the court proves essential. Thecase involving Zuckerberg, Tyler, and Cameron could be best solved bythe court as it involved a breach of contract. ADR cannot be appliedin the case of violation of human rights or violations. For instance,discrimination of human rights in a business environment requirescourt ruling or procedures. Furthermore, cases involving loss of lifeand major body injuries are best solved through the court. If oneloses his limb in a particular industry, the court can determine theamount to be paid for the satisfaction of the injured person.
My Opinion Regarding Trend
ADR is a reliabletrend for corporations and industries if conducted properly andagreeable solutions reached. It enables organizations to settleddisputes immediately, affecting the productivity goalsinsignificantly. However, the trend only benefits organizations thatare related in terms of resources.
Reasons Why Courts Appear Reluctant Regarding Settlement Reopening
Courts avoidreopening settlements as they have been discussed and an agreementreached in advance. Changing the ruling may appear unfair to one orboth parties. In addition, reopen settlements in most cases lead tothe influx. They are likely to result in complex procedures andextended period for investigation.
In conclusion,alternative dispute resolution befits organizations of equalfinancial strength. It helps save time and cost involved in court.Nevertheless, cases involving death, injuries or violation of humanrights should be solved in court.