Many contractors and companies in the construction industry naturally prefer construction disputes to be subject to binding arbitration. Others argue that because arbitration lacks facets of the procedural and legal structure of court proceedings, only traditional litigation will ensure a truly fact-based and law-based outcome. These opinions are often influenced by favorable or more likely unfavorable experiences in both forums. One of the disadvantages of litigation in a civil court is that the parties have no control over the judge in charge of their case. On the contrary, the clerk of the court will randomly assign a judge to each case, whether or not that judge is aware of the purpose of that particular act. While there are many competent and fair judges in the courts, there are also those who (perhaps not intentionally) generally favor plaintiffs over defendants, or vice versa. There are also judges who are reluctant to make final decisions, resulting in unnecessarily long cases. Efficient and flexible: Faster solution, easier to planThe dispute is usually resolved much earlier. It can take several years to get a hearing date, while an arbitration date can usually be reached within a few months. In addition, trials must be scheduled in court schedules, which are usually late without hundreds, if not thousands, of cases before you. On the other hand, arbitration can be easily scheduled depending on the availability of the parties and the arbitrator.

3. Arbitrator/Judge. The merits of a judgment depend largely on the quality of the arbitrator or trial judge. In arbitration, the parties choose the arbitrator(s). Any dispute between the parties before the hearing will be decided by the same arbitrators who will ultimately decide the case. In contrast, in many courts, no single judge is assigned to a case and, as a result, several judges may be involved in the adjudication of pre-judicial disputes. The judge is appointed by the court without the participation of the parties. Thus, arbitration gives the parties the opportunity to choose the decision-maker, unlike a court case. Arbitration is essentially a paid private procedure, in other words, a method of resolving disputes without going to court. The parties will submit the dispute to a neutral arbitrator of a third party and not to the courts. Unlike a courtroom or jury trial, the presentation can only consist of documents, although both parties still have lawyers to present pleadings.

However, before you decide to resolve your claim through arbitration, read on to understand the pros and cons. Binding arbitrationIf arbitration is contractually binding, the parties do not have the option to choose arbitration by mutual agreement. In these cases, one party may force the other party to resort to arbitration, even to a jury, which may be more advantageous to the other party. 3. Arbitration brings «your whole story» before the judge. In a courtroom, the judge acts as a filter for the jury, giving them only the evidence and documents they deem important. In arbitration, a claimant can tell their entire story and not be limited by what a judge deems permissible and inadmissible. Of course, the judge himself will limit what he takes into account in his decision, but at least you know that everything has been heard. In arbitration, both parties usually decide jointly on an arbitrator, unless the decision is set out in the arbitration clause of a contract. Less complicated: Simplified rules of evidence and procedureOlutions inevitably lead to a long path of filing documents and applications and participation in legal proceedings such as application hearings. The normal rules of evidence used in court may not be strictly applied in arbitration proceedings, making it much easier to admit evidence. Discovery, the lengthy and costly process of receiving and responding to interrogations, statements and requests for production of documents, can be significantly reduced in arbitration.

Instead, most questions, such as . B who is called as a witness and which documents must be presented, are dealt with with simple telephone calls with the arbitrator. Many 21st century contracts have a mandatory arbitration clause stipulating that all disputes must be dealt with by arbitration. Most of these contracts expressly exclude disputes. Arbitration clauses are common in real estate contracts (owner/tenant) and in employment contracts. Speed of the processThe arbitration procedure is quite fast. Once an arbitrator is chosen, the case can be heard immediately. In civil proceedings, on the other hand, a case must wait until the court has time to hear it; It can take several months or even years for the case to be heard. ImbalanceMany arbitration clauses work in favor of a large employer or manufacturer when challenged by an employee or consumer who does not understand how arbitration works.

Our third reason why arbitration is preferable is that the parties to an arbitration may be able to conduct the discovery as if they were hearing their case in civil court. Sometimes, however, there are limits. But parties will usually not lose if they discover crucial evidence before the arbitration hearing. .