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

2007-10-15 06:04:45 · 1 answers · asked by T T 1 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

1 answers

It's really a contradiction in terms.

Mediation, by definition, is a voluntary process -- it's where the parties sit down (literally or figuratively) and work with a neutral mediator to try and find a mutaully acceptable settlement. But the mediator cannot make decisions, and cannot impose any settlement on the parties -- the parties must agree to any proposed compromise.

A court can order that parties attempt mediation. But the court cannot order the parties to reach a compromise.

However, if the parties do reach a compromise and they both voluntarily agree to that deal -- the court can take a mediated settlement agreement and include that as part of the court's order -- so, the term you use might refer to that order -- where the court is ordering the parties to abide by the terms they have already agreed to, giving that contract compromise additional weight of enforcement.

2007-10-15 06:22:13 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers