Cons Of Arbitration Agreements

06 Déc Cons Of Arbitration Agreements

Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes without going to court. Sometimes a lawyer will recommend an arbitration procedure to a client as the best way to resolve a claim. As part of the arbitration process, the dispute is referred to a third party (the arbitrator) who will resolve the dispute after hearing a submission from both parties. The presentation can only be documents presented to the arbitrator on each side. More often, each page, in addition to the documents submitted, will make oral arguments personally. As a general rule, each page will have a lawyer to make oral argument for it. Sometimes there are witnesses testifying. Tagged with: American Arbitration Association, Arbitration, Business Law, commercial litigation Con: Unlike an arbitration procedure, a judge or jury normally has no background as an owner, general contractor, subcontractor or architect. As a result, they have no bias in favour of a segment of the construction industry. In an arbitration, the designated arbitrator is sometimes a person who is an architect, a general contractor or a subcontractor, and this previous experience in a sector of the construction industry sometimes creates a distortion.

This is why general contractors often refuse to choose a subcontractor as an arbitrator and vice versa. The pros and cons of using arbitration as a method of resolving a dispute are likely to be in the eyes of the viewer. For this reason, many of the items in the list below are displayed as both pros and cons. However, the list below explains some of the general views of arbitration, both positive and negative, as well as how the perspective of a game can play into the equation. While the arbitration procedure is to release the parties, to deal quickly and cheaply with litigation, the process has its own limits. Parties may still be delayed. For example, selecting an arbitrator or choosing the rules applicable during the arbitration process may take time. It is also important to keep in mind that part of the arbitration waives the right to a jury. As a bank trial in civil trials, a single person makes the decisions; and the parties to the trial (particularly individual clients) cannot be fully satisfied with their day in court. And unlike civil proceedings, parties to an arbitration must pay the arbitrator, usually at a juicy hourly or daily wage. In the end, we generally recommend arbitration as a better alternative to litigation in the courts. But think carefully about the positive and negative of arbitration before making this decision.

Con: A legal action normally takes nine to twelve months to go from the first submission to the hearing. However, unlike an arbitration procedure, a court action opens the possibility of making legal decisions to the court ahead of the trial, which has the effect of reducing the issues or dismissing all or part of the claims. Proponents of arbitration argue that it has advantages over litigation (going to court). The speed and informality of arbitration are alleged, a main reason why many companies choose litigation arbitration. In many cases, arbitration can be a shorter process, and if no lawyers are needed, it can be less expensive. Businesses should not view arbitration as a restriction on workers` rights to raise their concerns or to be compensated in the event of a problem. Instead, employers should view the procedure as a dispute resolution system that does not include the courts. Employers can recognize many benefits in requiring employees to sign arbitration agreements. However, a badly written can be as dangerous as it is not at all.

Proposals for employers should be considered when the design of arbitration agreements that are fair to workers and that withstand most challenges: Pro: Normally, an appeal of an arbitration award is allowed for only one in five reasons: therefore, an arbitration award is rarely overturned in arbitration proceedings, even if the evidence does not support