Civil and Alternative Dispute Resolution
The public and alternative dispute resolution practice is a mechanism developed under the Legal Service Authorities Act 1987. The act provision was an alternative method through which parties would have a proper resolution of their disputes (Brett, 2015). The main objective would be achieving an agreement between the parties involved giving them the power to choose the outcome of their contract.
Considering the case of Pete and ATV manufacturers, there are several ways through which the two parties may choose to settle their lawsuit. The alternative dispute resolution act provides different forms of resolutions that the parties may select and follow through. For the case under consideration, they may choose to consider the following alternative ways of Dispute resolution.
Forms of alternative dispute resolution
Facilitation: The alternative dispute resolution aims at having a neutral third party that assumes the role of working with the parties to resolve. Here Pete and ATV would choose a neutral third party and use them in their resolution of the case. The process entails the use of telecommunication, emails, and written correspondences.
Mediation: A formal way of dispute resolution where parties involved acquires a mediator who helps the workout a solution to their case. Here the power and decision made are still left to the parties to decide. However, the session starts with a party stating their side of the story as the mediator takes critical points from their account. Additionally, it makes the following different forms; Face- face where parties directly communicate during the process, shuttle where the mediator has to do a separation of the parties, and listens to alternative ideas for the resolution. Additionally, under facilitative, the mediator links communication between the parties. Moreover, evaluative where the mediator listens to the parties both stories and evaluates the possible settlement options for the case.
Arbitration: The most formal way of solving a dispute and which involves a third party taking a part of the dispute resolution. The power of decision lies in the hands of the third party, where he listens to both parties during a hearing and makes a point of giving a resolution based on his understanding (Zeller & Trakman, 2019). However, the parties may choose this form of dispute resolution in instances where they wish to save on the cost of a court trial. Similarly, this may get selected in the cases where the parties want an individual experienced in the subject.
However, as Pete’s lawyer, I may advise him to take up the arbitration process as this will save on costs, and in instances where the resolution is not satisfying, he may choose a court proceeding. Pete may consider the following way or resolution through arbitration as it provides different alternatives and eliminates bias in the decision made by the arbitrator.
Case support
Oxford Health Plans LCC v. Sutter, 569 U.S. 564 (2013)
The case above involves a dispute between Sutter, who offered medical services to patients insured by Oxford under a free-for-services that required arbitration in cases of disputes. However, Sutter filed a class action in state court, claiming that Oxford failed to pay them and other physicians. However, from the court proceedings, it held that “an arbitrator may only choose class action in situations where both parties involved agree.” However, a unanimous affirmation of the Third Circuit affirmed, and the arbitrator’s decision survived the legal limit. In this case, Sutter had the option of moving to court since the arbitrator’s decision was not satisfying to him.