Despite the fervent initial reactions caused by disputes, it is generally advisable that cooler heads prevail. Negotiation, mediation, arbitration and litigation are different stages on the continuum between consensual resolution on the one hand, and formal adjudication on the other. The goal of the parties should be to determine a settlement position or a strategic objective for the dispute, and then select the best approach to achieving resolution. There are pros and cons to each approach. These alternatives to litigation also enable the parties to control the process and adapt them, by agreement, to meet their particular goals.
Resolution is accomplished by the parties rather than imposed by an adjudicator.
Where there is a continuing relationship, whether business or personal, this scenario is much preferable to an adversarial process. Negotiation and mediation are the most efficient and least costly of the dispute resolution options. Negotiation is often a parallel process with litigation or arbitration. It should involve few people who have clear instructions on objectives and authority to settle. The flexibility often enables pending litigation to be converted into a good business opportunity, although a poor approach may sour a relationship already stressed by the dispute.