Four common methods of dispute resolution are mediation, arbitration, trial by judge, and trial by jury, and each can be assessed on the following criteria - relative speed of resolution, relative cost, possible variation of outcome, and whether the method is binding on the parties. Below is my very short assessment of each dispute resolution method using those four criteria (based on experience only and certainly not legal dogma).
Mediation - quick/ low cost/ controlled outcome/ non-binding
Trial by Judge - lengthy/ medium to high cost/ undefined outcome, but probably less variable than jury trial/ binding
Arbitration - medium time frame/ medium to high cost/ probably less variable than trial by judge/ binding
Trial by Jury - lengthy/ high cost/ potentially highly variable outcome/ binding
Virtually every contract to which your company is or will become a party will contain one or more provisions that govern a dispute relating to your contract. Defining the scope of dispute resolution can take on numerous forms. For example, if you only desire to eliminate the potentially lengthy, costly and variable trial by jury, you would include a simple "Waiver of Jury Trial" in your agreement. By contrast, your contract could contain a very lengthy arbitration provision that specifies virtually every detail of the dispute process, including the times and locations and names of possible arbitrators. The degree to which your company desires to control the dispute process is largely determined by the resources that your company has available to devote toward dispute resolution, together with the degree of risk your company is willing to accept in terms of outcome. Ultimately, that choice is a business decision, but once that decision is made, it is important to retain competent legal counsel to draft the appropriate provisions in your contract.
