Common Methods of Dispute Management by Private Parties :

Private parties typically choose from a range of consensual or adjudicative processes, often referred to as Non-Court Dispute Resolution (NCDR).
Negotiation: This is the most informal and direct method, where the parties communicate to reach a mutually acceptable agreement without a third party. It is often the first step in dispute resolution.
Mediation: A neutral third party (the mediator) assists the parties in their negotiations, facilitates communication, and helps them explore solutions. The mediator does not impose a decision, and any settlement is voluntary, though it can be made legally binding in a contract.
Conciliation: Similar to mediation, a conciliator facilitates dialogue, but may also provide a non-binding proposal for settlement.
Arbitration: The parties submit their dispute to one or more impartial experts (arbitrators) who review evidence and issue a final, legally binding decision called an “award”. This process is more formal than mediation but generally less formal and faster than going to court.
Expert Determination: This is used primarily for technical issues, where an independent expert is appointed to investigate and provide a binding decision on the matter using their specialized knowledge.
Advantages over Litigation:
Private dispute management methods offer several benefits compared to the public court system (litigation):
Speed: Disputes can often be resolved much more quickly, sometimes in a single day through mediation or within weeks via adjudication/arbitration.
Cost-Effectiveness: While there are costs involved (e.g., mediator or arbitrator fees), they are typically significantly less than the legal fees associated with court proceedings.
Confidentiality: The proceedings are generally private and confidential, which is a major advantage for businesses wishing to avoid public disclosure of sensitive information.
Expertise: Parties can select a third party (arbitrator or expert) with specific subject-matter expertise relevant to the dispute, which is not always possible with a publicly appointed judge.
Flexibility: Parties have more control over the process, the rules, and the solutions, allowing for more creative and tailored outcomes that preserve business relationships.