HRMT411 Week 7 Assignment: Executory Arbitration

HRMT411 Week 7 Assignment: Executory Arbitration

Arbitration offers several advantages over the traditional status quo of litigation, but it also has its drawbacks. One key advantage of arbitration is its efficiency. According to Biresaw (2021), arbitration is a commonly the utilized alternative method for resolving disputes as it generally moves at a quicker pace than litigation while avoiding convoluted court procedures. Parties involved in contractual disputes often value this consideration since it provides for more efficient settlement processes without having to endure prolonged legal battles or overburdened judicial systems. Another attractive feature of arbitration lies in selecting an arbitrator who has specialization in the specific area related causing conflict between each party. This increases transparency and often results in more appropriate resolutions due to knowledgeable guidance provided. Lastly, its confidential nature gives opportunities for privacy regarding conflict resolution detail which allows disputes resolution with sensitive information easily tackled.

However, arbitration does have its disadvantages. One major drawback is the limited scope for appeal (Deskoski et al., 2019). Unlike litigation, where parties have the option to challenge a court’s decision in higher courts, arbitration awards are generally final and binding. This limited recourse can be problematic if an arbitrator makes an error in law or fact. In addition, another major drawback is heightened expenses related directly or indirectly to disputing parties. Arbitrators who handle these cases usually charge quite hefty fees that might put them beyond reach for everyone involved in smaller disputes such as individuals and small businesses (Deskoski et al., 2019). Further compounding cost-related issues are informalities associated with information presentation and lack of rigid procedural rules that could hurt parties seeking fair results from this recourse mechanism offered by courts or institutions like trade associations among others.

Considering alternatives to arbitration and litigation, mediation is a viable option worth exploring. To resolve conflicts effectively through negotiations, some parties use an impartial mediator who helps facilitate discussions between parties by promoting communication until they reach a mutually satisfactory outcome (Biresaw, 2021). This straightforward but effective method improves their level of control over possible outcomes and encourages working together towards finding solutions collaboratively while maintaining flexibility in cost and formality compared with arbitration or litigation alternatives. However, mediation often requires genuine cooperation from all sides which can sometimes prove challenging when there are issues like significant power imbalances or a complete breakdown in trust between groups involved in conflict (Rijnhar et al., 2021). Nevertheless, this approach still represents an opportunity for many disputes as it offers valued options that enable lenient conflict resolution culture while preserving common grounds.

It is common for consenting parties to rely on executory arbitration agreements as their means of resolving potential legal issues in a fair manner ahead of time. According to Rijnhar et al. (2021), these types of contracts hold up under legal scrutiny as legally enforceable options, but some exceptional cases warrant further inspection before enforcement occurs. These particular scenarios might include instances whereby an agreement was secured under fraudulent methods or pressure, would wrongly deprive one party’s rights due to being too unfairly bias or completely contradicts recognized laws protecting society’s best interests (Liny, 2022). A court could therefore choose not to recognize such an agreement in order to serve justice more suitably for all involved.

The perception of executory arbitration agreements varies among the general public. Some individuals appreciate the efficiency, confidentiality, and expertise offered by arbitration. However, critics argue that some agreements could prevent parties from accessing justice – specifically individuals who are at a disadvantage like consumers or employees in unequal relationships with more powerful counterparts. One notable issue pertains to how decisions are made within arbitration proceedings as there are fears surrounding bias and opacity during these events.

The subject of the fairness of executory arbitration agreements is one that continues to generate debate amongst many people in society. The position held by certain individuals is that these arrangements unfairly limit personal freedoms and hinder opportunities for necessary legal remedies (Liny, 2022). On the other hand, there exists another group that deems such agreements as being pragmatic solutions to evade high litigation expenses along with time-consuming procedures. What must be taken into consideration is how distinct points-of-view concerning ‘fairness’ may impact businesses or institutions relying upon such contracts- below par perceptions could very well sour reputation.

As opposed to court judgments, it is worth noting that arbitration decisions often do not bear equal significance in establishing legal precedents. The binding nature of an arbitration award applies only to the disputing parties included in that particular disagreement- it does not create any legally obligatory point of reference in subsequent matters. This distinct attribute grants wider scope and adaptability when formulating tailor-made verdicts aimed at accommodating diverse case specifications.

It is not uncommon for people dealing with legal issues or disputes to prioritize their privacy concerns. If this applies particularly strongly in your case. You may want to consider opting for an arbitrated alternative instead of heading straight towards traditional routes like court appearances. Arbitrations are often less public than their courtroom counterparts due to fewer rules around public access; details regarding your disagreement and how they were resolved generally will not be shared without your express consent first – although naturally the specific level of confidentiality for an individual arbitration can vary based on various factors like the rules and regulations related to that particular context.

To maintain confidentiality and uphold ethical practices employees are advised against disclosing any information that is discussed during arbitration hearings without seeking prior approval or consent from their respective companies. This will ensure that appropriate measures are taken towards protecting sensitive data involved in these proceedings. Confidentiality obligations are usually imposed on the parties involved in arbitration, including employees, through contractual agreements or arbitration rules. Breaching these confidentiality obligations can have legal consequences (Biresaw, 2021). However, while navigating issues related to arbitration and confidentiality, it is crucial to keep in mind that laws regulating these areas may differ across jurisdictions. Consequently, exploring expert guidance from legal professionals or extensively examining pertinent legislation can provide valuable insights into specific mandates and constraints within any given location.

References

Biresaw, S. M. (2021). Appraisal of the Success of the Instruments of International Commercial Arbitration vs. Litigation and Mediation in the Harmonization of the Rules of Transnational Commercial Dispute Settlement.

Deskoski, T., Dokovski, V., & Kocev, L. (2019). The Birth and Rise of the International Commercial Courts in Paris-Boosting Litigation Or Alternative to Arbitration. Iustinianus Primus L. Rev., 10, 29.

Liny, J. K. (2022). Arbitration: Alternative or Appropriate Dispute Resolution. Issue 3 Int’l JL Mgmt. & Human., 5, 1860.

Rijnhart, J. J., Lamp, S. J., Valente, M. J., MacKinnon, D. P., Twisk, J. W., & Heymans, M. W. (2021). Mediation analysis methods used in observational research: a scoping review and recommendations. BMC medical research methodology, 21(1), 1-17.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE