英语论文网

tion cases, the same general contractors and subcontractors may work with each other over the course of many years on various projects. The architect on a project may be the one choosing the various contractors, so that the contractors have no choice but to cooperate on future jobs, or lose the work. It certainly does not foster a cooperative attitude if the various parties are or have been embroiled in bitter litigation. Instead of the win/lose nature of a trial, ADR offers more opportunity for compromise and fashioning a remedy that is conducive to preserving the working relationship of the particular parties involved.
Business relationships, unlike marriages, often do not terminate at the end of litigation. It is therefore essential that an already strained relationship not be further eroded by the litigation process. As one commentator has noted, "Litigation, once a form of damage control, has today become the means of further damage infliction." ADR can short-circuit that damage-inflicting process.

III. WHEN NOT TO USE ADR
Although most civil disputes can be resolved through some alternative dispute resolution procedure, ADR is not a panacea and some cases are not appropriate for ADR. Experience has shown that ADR, or a particular ADR method, may not be effective in the following circumstances.

A. The Case Is Not Right for ADR.
ADR may not be an appropriate choice in certain matters because of the nature of the case itself. For instance, if one party has a clear right to win under statutory or case law, there is little point in mediation, since the most likely outcome of that method is a compromise. Also, if one party wants to set a legal precedent or make new law, a traditional trial may be a better choice because ADR decisions apply only to the parties involved in that particular case. Matters involving constitutional interpretation or application are usually not right for ADR, nor are declaratory relief actions or other matters involving statutory or contract interpretation, which have proven to be better handled by the courts. Other cases that may be inappropriate for ADR include those in which unassisted negotiations are proceeding smoothly; cases in which one side is likely to win quickly and inexpensively with a motion; and cases in which one party believes it can win a big verdict against the other party, because ADR is based on compromise.
B. The Stage of the Proceedings Is Not Right for ADR.
ADR attempts can fail based on lack of preparation or inadequate discovery. Just because ADR is a more informal process does not mean that all of the rules and formalities can be dispensed with. Discovery is necessary even when using an expedited process and no one should expect a good result from ADR without adequate preparation. It is essential that parties have a clear idea of the evidence in support of their position before going to the bargaining table.

C. The Parties Are Not Right for ADR.
Even when a case is right for ADR and the matter is developed to the appropriate point, efforts at informal resolution may fail if, for instance, both parties are not settlement-minded and willing to compromise. Thirty-three percent of the respondents in the Deloitte & Touche national ADR survey of corporate general counsel and outside attorneys listed lack of chemistry between the parties as the reason for a failed ADR attempt.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。