It is important for parties involved in a dispute to settle their differences amicably through a medium that not only promotes peaceful resolutions but strives to maintain the relationship, faith or trust that had hitherto existed between the said parties. It is essential therefore for Pete, who has filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of his all-terrain vehicle for the defective product, to establish such a medium.
Some of the factors that these parties should consider include the costs of litigation and time delays to plaque litigations. Based on how fast Pete would wish for his case to be resolved and the financial implications he may incur, it may be advisable for him to use non-litigation mediums, also called Alternative Dispute Resolution. ADR consists of such processes as arbitration, mediation, and negotiation. Since Pete holds that his ATV tends to roll over due to its defectiveness, while the manufacturer points out that the ATV rolls over due to the consumer's carefree style of driving, there is the need to look deeper into the reasons for the rolling over. A third party comes in handy to carefully assess the situation from a neutral point of view, and most probably from an expert point of view to determine the cause of the accidents. But most importantly, if these two parties wish to hold onto their working relationship, then it is crucial that the process be fair and results acceptable to both. Lawsuits would result either in one party compensating the other or the case being dropped on other grounds, either case; one party will emerge victorious while the other feels like they lost. Such a result will go along in bruising the trust, loyalty or faith these parties share.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
But if either Pete or the manufacturer still feel like they need to go through with the lawsuit, then the suit has to go through the following civil steps. Step one is the initial proceedings where Pete would file a complaint and a summons then served to the manufacturer to which he has limited time to file a response. Disclosures are then served between these two parties providing more information about the case. The third step which is the discovery allows the parties to dig into the report and gather more information. The court will then file a request for an order giving more instructions on the case. This process is called the motion. Should the lawsuit go through motions, it enters the trial phase where both parties present evidence before a judge or jury and await their decision. Due to the formalities and the costs incurred in such a lengthy process, as Pete's lawyer, I would strongly advise him to consider out of court settlement (Newman, 1985).
Out of court settlements seem to be the trending form of conflict resolution. Many parties are considering this over lawsuits due to the desire to keep a low profile on disagreements and create a conducive and friendly environment to air out grievances. Consider the case of Andrew Francis Reitz, for instance. Reitz established the A.F. Reitz Trust in 2000 naming his sons, James and John, as sole beneficiaries and appointed himself as the trustee. However, upon his death, his attorney, Hal Rachal, Jr., became the successor trustee. He had helped draft the trust during Reitz' time. While John Reitz in 2009 filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary injunction, and Rachel's removal as trustee, Rachel sited an arbitration provision by the trust which stated that for any dispute involving the fund, Andrew Reitz intended for an arbitration process to resolve it. The Supreme Court of Texas overturned the judgment the court of appeals had made earlier and remanded a trial that would be consistent with the trust's provision (Rachal v. Reitz, 2013). It is clear that Reitz intended for any dispute to be settled amicably through a peaceful medium.
References
Newman, J. O. (1985). Rethinking fairness: Perspectives on the litigation process. Rec. Ass'n B. City NY , 40 , 12.
Rachal v. Reitz , 403 S.W.3d 840 (Tex. 2013).
