The above query in today’s blog post can be answered in a single word: carefully.
Some thorny issues with a contracting entity or other third party can ultimately be resolved in relatively civil fashion, of course, without the need to move forward and invoke a legal process.
Others resist that solution, though. They demand a California business owner’s response concerning the best method to be employed to protect company interests.
That might prove to be arbitration, which is typically deemed to be a comparatively simpler and more streamlined process than formal litigation pursued in court. Or, conversely, business principals might view a courtroom as being the only viable forum for airing grievances and securing a just outcome.
The point to be made concerning those choices is that neither one of them customarily emerges as a clear favorite when a material dispute first rears its head. A recent article addressing arbitration and litigation as dispute-resolving options notes that serious and timely due diligence needs to precede any reasoned determination on the matter -- in every case.
The cited business piece stresses how vitally important it is for business decision makers to “understand the pros and cons of taking a case to trial before heading down that path.” Costs are key of course, but so too can be scheduling, document production, the involvement of expert witnesses, the introduction and explanation of complex data and additional matters.
Fully understanding the relative costs and benefits that emerge with some clarity in a litigation-versus-arbitration analysis is a flat prerequisite to making a sound business decision.
For affected businesses, notes the aforementioned article, that begins “with a detailed discussion with their lawyers.”
Advocates from a proven commercial law firm will be amply ready to provide value in that process.