LEGAL ISSUES 1

Alternative Dispute Resolution – BATNA

Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Date
LEGAL ISSUES 2

Alternative Dispute Resolution - BATNA

The best practice before a negotiation is to have favorable options available. One feels
empowered and confident to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement or shift to their better
alternative. As the adage goes, "don't put all your eggs in one basket" it indicates imperative that
one should not only negotiate with just one negotiating team as they will most likely end up with
a rotten deal. One may end up with no strong alternative to deny the deal or even a rotten deal.
One ought to have a strong Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA). By
definition, BATNA is the best alternative plan when the negotiation starts wobbling out of
control. BATNA can also be one’s Trump card for making the deal occur at one's advantage. A
strong BATNA can also enable one to walk away from the deal.
In this case, the three: my client and the other party, have various BATNAs to negotiate.
For my client, she has a BATNA in selling Cherry's chairs to anyone else despite being tied by
the exclusivity clause. According to the exclusivity clause, a party is expected to exclusively
purchase or sell goods only from a specified party. The seller should be the only party that
provides the goods outlined in the agreement and the two parties are legally restricted to conduct
the business as agreed. She has a BATNA of going for the other alternative; Butler Ski Resort,
which needs inclusivity. Butler Ski Resort would allow the client to sell the chairlift anywhere
else and that means she will make more profits in constructing or delivering her cherry's chairs to
various resorts instead of being tied to one Atlantis Ski Resort which restricts her to be the sole
resort offering the chairs.
Besides, Atlantis Ski Resort also has a BATNA. By tying the client to an exclusivity
clause and insisting on being the sole resort offering Cherry's chairs, they planned on limiting the
number of partners the client works with to assist them in creating a competitive advantage. They
aimed to become the exclusive provider of Cherry's chairs and thus be the only resort to be
receiving the goods exclusively from the client. Therefore, in case the client would breach the
terms of the contract after signing, she would be held responsible for legal actions since she
would be sued by Atlantis Ski Resort.
Based on the case, I would advise the client on various ways of improving her negotiation
position or enhancing their bargaining power in a negotiation. First, she ought to understand that
there is value in having more than just a single BATNA. Even a strong BATNA is subject to
change. For instance, she may be having an alternative firm- Butler Ski Resort- that does not
need an exclusivity clause for them to allow a supplier to operate or do business with them but
such a contract may be terminated any time due to lack of a written agreement or dissolution of a
firm or even an end of employment for an individual who offered the contract. Since BATNA
can fall through any time, she should think of or create more of them. In this case, she should
consider identifying another firm that offers a relatively greater price but with no need for an
exclusivity clause as that would enable the business to look for other business options.
Since contract negotiations have flaws and unrealized faults at early stages, she should
consider setting objectives before negotiating with any resort. Since the market in which she
operates is competitive, should understand that she is in a much stronger position and thus ought
to consider evaluating factors such as the price offered by each resort, the value of money of the
region, relative cost of producing such goods, and maintenance arrangements (Sebenius, 2017).
She should establish her preferred outcome and thus challenge the negotiators based on the
mentioned factors.
LEGAL ISSUES 3

Moreover, to improve her negotiation position, the client should not show a weak
BATNA or even let the parties involved to diminish her BATNA. No matter how hard the client
is trying to develop a strong best alternative to negotiation, reaching a weaker one is possible.
For instance, one may fail to find a contract whose terms seem less appealing than the one they
are negotiating for. In such scenarios, one needs to be careful not to indicate a weak BATNA.
Moreover, the counterpart or the negotiation party should not be aware of her BATNA as they
will try to diminish it. The client should not let either of the parties know that she has a greater
alternative like the ability to supply the rival firm with the same products as one party may
disparage the other resort to make her BATNA seem less appealing and compel her to agree to
the deal. Usually, a counterpart in a contract agreement has a vested interest in seeing the other
party think inappropriately concerning their BATNA and thus the client should not fall for such
tricks.
The client should also consider researching the counterpart's BATNAs to determine their
effectiveness and compare weights. For instance, the client ought to get a general sense of
whether the resorts are likely to have a lot of potential suppliers of the same products and the
quality of goods they usually prefer. However, the client has to do this without the resort noticing
because they would think that the client is desperate or paranoid and would just accept any price
in case they are aware that there are many competing suppliers that the firm targets.
Moreover, since the client would be facing two counterparts: the individual negotiator at
the table and the organization being represented, she should assess and think through two-level
BATNAs. Therefore, she has to be aware that she is facing two BATNAs as well which they
should think through. Important factors for consideration, in this case, include the incentives to
be received by the negotiator(s), their compensation, the time they've worked for the firm, and
their long-term aspirations as such components will enable her to examine the two BATNAs and
gain insight into their walkaway alternatives (Sebenius, 2017).
Finally, the client should rethink the deal's scope. Taking the fundamental scope of a deal
is very important as it enables one to determine whether a short-term or long-term deal is better
or not for their good. Regardless of their BATNAs; the client's and the negotiator'', every party
matches towards getting positive outcomes. However, there are significant opportunities that
impact the scope of negotiation and the client should be aware of such. The client needs to be
more creative or even use experts to analyze and present information on the nature or scope of
negotiation hence assisting in reaching solutions.
LEGAL ISSUES 4

REFERENCE
Sebenius, J. K. (2017). BATNA s in Negotiation: Common Errors and Three Kinds of
“No”. Negotiation Journal, 33(2), 89-99.