The American economy is growing every day with new industries, new competition and even new technology to create better products for consumers. However, this growing competitive environment will also lead to growing tension between companies as they fight for consumer loyalty and the limited income of current customers.
It begs the question of when new conflicts arise, is it appropriate to bring the battle to court versus trying to settle it out out of the public eye? There are advantages to both approaches, but it depends on the risks your company wants to take.
Dispute resolution versus Litigation
In most situations, litigation isn’t the right call because of the expense, the effort and the risk of losing a long-term court battle. It’s rarer that you will outright win a trial in a dispute; it’s much more likely you will receive a settlement or compromise from the judge.
Considering the risks, it might be best to consider alternatives to a traditional trial, including:
- Arbitration – A process where both parties have a private hearing that results in a binding resolution from an arbitrator. It’s helpful when you just want a quick resolution to a larger dispute and holds a similar weight to a court decision.
- Mediation – An approach where the disputing parties employ a neutral third party, also known as the mediator, to develop a creative solution to their conflict. It’s an excellent option when both parties are open to different resolutions and willing to communicate with one another.
There is also a benefit to alternative methods as more trials are being pushed or going online recently. You can work easily with an arbitrator or meditator online or through virtual means. Also, saves money and time for both companies.
Ultimately, the decision to fight in court depends on your willingness to risk more time and effort for the resolution you’re seeking.