Question

Read the following scenario and answer the question in 5–10 sentences.

In December of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. The contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. Until February 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. However, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. The supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. Your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. Over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. After speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. Weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? Which would be the best option for your business and why?

Answer 1

Since litigation will be expensive for companies and will last for years, there are alternative ways to resolve disputes without having to go to court. Compared with litigation, they are less time-consuming and cost-effective. Here are three ways to resolve disputes.

A. Negotiation

In the process, the two parties in the conflict reached a mutually agreed solution. The two parties or their representatives reached a negotiation through discussion. There is no third party involved in this process. They should consult a lawyer before resolving the matter so that they understand their rights and obligations to resolve the issue.

B. Mediation

In this process, a neutral third party helps the two parties reach a final decision or settlement and is called a mediator. He is responsible for the communication of all parties, and he manages the communication fairly, honestly, and fairly. But he cannot act like a judge or an arbitrator, nor can he make a decision after reaching an agreed settlement memorandum after reaching a written understanding of the agreement based on the agreed terms

C. Arbitration

In this process, a third party makes the decision. The arbitrator arranges meetings between the two parties in the conflict, hears the case, then conducts the case trial, and obtains information and evidence from both parties, and finally, he makes a judgment because the judge is binding on both parties. Party,

In my opinion, mediation is the best choice among the above three options because it is now time-consuming and cheaper than court litigation, so it has become very popular today. Mediation can be used for any type of dispute, so it has been widely accepted as part of the litigation process. So I will mediate for my business.