English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

4 answers

Also sometimes called non-binding arbitration.

It's a process where an expert -- either legal or based on the subject matter -- listens to the evidence and renders a professional opinion on the likely outcome. The neutral then often gives a recommendation on a settlement.

The parties can then follow that recommendation, or not. But it has no binding effect as a matter of law. Unlike binding arbitration, which is similar in process, different in outcome.

2007-03-22 13:02:57 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

Having a "neutral" - some outside professional, typically a mediator, assess the facts of the dispute and the law that would be applied to those facts, in order to give the parties a non-biased analysis. Once the parties have this, the theory goes, they will have a view of how a court might see their case, and reach a quick settlement.

Sometimes it works.

2007-03-22 20:08:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Outside party comes in and hears both sides to help make resolution

2007-03-22 19:59:42 · answer #3 · answered by ducheeny35 2 · 0 0

It's what courts are based on: getting an impartial observer to look at the dispute.

2007-03-22 19:59:39 · answer #4 · answered by llordlloyd 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers