LEGAL SOLUTIONS TO

AREAS OF DISPUTE
MS ALIZAE
BUSINESS LAW
 INTRODUCTION
 TERMS OF CONTRACT CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS THAT PARTIES HAVE UNDERTAKEN.
 IF A STATEMENT IS ONLY MEANT TO BE A REPRESENTATION, THEN THERE IS NO INTENTION
THAT IT IS TO BE PART OF THE CONTRACT.
 SIMPLE THINGS LIKE COLOR, DELIVERY METHOD ARE TERMS.
 STATEMENTS OF FACT OR PROMISES WHICH FORM THE ESSENTIAL TERMS OF THE
CONTRACT I.E. A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE AGREEMENT.
 IF THE STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE, OR THE PROMISE IS NOT FULFILLED, THE INJURED PARTY
MAY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT OR GO THROUGH WITH THE AGREEMENT AND SUE FOR
DAMAGES.
VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF TYPES OF
TERMS
 APPROPRIATE LEGAL SOLUTIONS TO RESOLVE AREAS OF
DISPUTE
BUSINESS QUESTIONS ARE EXTREMELY NORMAL AND MIGHT INFLUENCE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND
BRAND PICTURE. THE WAY TOWARD BUILDING UP A BUSINESS CAN BE WINDING AND LONG AND MAY HAVE
NUMEROUS QUESTIONS. SUBSEQUENTLY, HANDLING THEM WHILE KEEPING UP WITH THE RELATIONSHIP FOR
A LONG HAUL IS USEFUL FOR BUSINESS SUPPORTABILITY. THERE ARE TWO ESSENTIAL METHODS OF
SETTLING THE QUESTIONS, IN PARTICULAR COURT SUIT AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)

 ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION HAS DIFFERENT APPROACHES

1) MEDIATION (MEDIATOR RESOLVES THE DISPUTE AND HELP THE DISPUTANTS TO AGREE ON AN
ALTERNATIVE ON THEIR OWN)
2) ARBITRATION: ( ARBITRATOR GIVES THE VERDICT WHICH IS BINDING ON BOTH THE PARTIES AND BOTH
OF THEM HAVE TO FOLLOW IT )
3) NEGOTIATION: (THE TWO DISPUTANT PARTIES ARE BROUGHT INTO DIRECT OR INDIRECT CONTACT
THROUGH A NEGOTIATOR )
4) CONCILIATION:(CONCILIATOR IS ASKED BY THE DISPUTANT TO SUGGEST SOME NON-BINDING
PROPOSAL)
 SOURCES OF LEGAL ADVICE

i. TRADE UNIONS: THE PRETENDED BY THE WORKER'S ORGANIZATIONS IS

EXTREMELY SIGNIFICANT AS THEY CAN HELP THE SPECIALISTS IN GUARDING THEIR
COMPENSATION RELATED ISSUES, WORKING CONDITIONS AND WELLBEING AND
WELLBEING, EMPLOYER STABILITY, AND WORKING GUIDELINES RELATED ISSUES.
THEY ARE SHAPED WITH A DREAM OF BEING A LEGITIMATE GUIDE TO THE WORK AND
LABORERS.

ii. LEGAL HELP CENTERS: MOST OF THEM ARE CONTROLLED BY NGOS

AND SOCIAL ACTIVISTS AND THEY TARGET GIVING LEGITIMATE ASSISTANCE AND
MONETARY ASSISTANCE TO BATTLE CASE IN THE COURT TO THE POOR ONES. THEY ARE
CONTROLLED BY A FOUNDATION.

iii. SOLICITORS: THESE ARE THE EXPERTS WHO GIVE LAWFUL HELP TO PEOPLE
AND ORGANIZATIONS. THEY CHARGE THEIR EXPENSE AS INDICATED BY THE NEED OF
THE INDIVIDUAL. THEY WORK IN VARIOUS LAWFUL FIELDS.
 “COMPARE AND CONTRAST DIFFERENT SOURCES OF LEGAL ADVICE AND
SUPPORT FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION”
SOLUTION OF CASE 2
SUGGESTED SOLUTION IS ADR BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS
 IT IS ECONOMICAL METHOD AND TIME-SAVING APPROACH.
 IT KEEPS THE RELATIONSHIP HEALTHY BETWEEN THE DISPUTANTS.
 THE ISSUES BETWEEN THE PARTIES CAN BE PREVENTED FROM GOING PUBLIC.
NEGATIVE IMPACTS
i. THE DECISION-MAKING CAN BE BIASED AND OTHER PARTY MAY NOT FEEL SATISFIED AND MAY
CHALLENGE THE DECISION IN THE COURT.
ii. THIS MAY MAKE THE METHOD COSTLY AND TIME-CONSUMING.

CASE STRATEGIES ARE EXORBITANT AND TEDIOUS. IN THIS MANNER, ADR TECHNIQUES ARE APPROPRIATE
INSTRUMENTS TO DETERMINE THE ISSUES ADEQUATELY. IN THE CASE STUDY OF SALVATORE GOING TO THE
COURT LOOKING FOR SETTLING THE ISSUE MAY REQUIRE A LONG TIME TO CHOOSE AND WINNING CHANCES
ARE 50-50 FOR BOTH THE PARTIES. ADR SETTLES THE CIRCUMSTANCE SO THAT THE CHOICE IS A MUTUALLY
ADVANTAGEOUS CASE FOR THE TWO PLAYERS. IT GIVES MORE CREATIVE ANSWERS FOR RESOLVE THE
QUESTION. THE LONE LIMIT OF ADR IS THAT THE TECHNIQUE DOESN'T ENSURE AN ANSWER.
 “COMPARE AND CONTRAST DIFFERENT SOURCES OF
LEGAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION”

• ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS WORLD, DELIBERATE TECHNIQUES FOR DEBATE GOAL ARE IN
EVERY CASE BEST. THIS IS ON THE GROUNDS THAT GATHERINGS CAN COMPLETE THE
INTERACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR TIME ACCESSIBILITY AND COMFORT. FURTHERMORE, THE
TWO PLAYERS CAN KEEP UP WITH THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND THEIR STANDING IN THE
MARKET IS PROTECTED. CASE DOES NOT HAVE EVERY SINGLE SUCH BOUNDARY AND THUS, IT
IS THE MOST UN-FAVORED ANSWER FOR THE ISSUE. ADR KEEPS THE CYCLE TO PROCEED WITH
THE ASSENT OF THE GATHERINGS IN QUESTION. ONE OUGHT TO GO FOR CASE IF THE
ARRANGEMENT GIVEN BY THE ADR ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR ANY GATHERING AND THAT CAN
MAKE GENUINE MISFORTUNE IT. THE PROSECUTION TECHNIQUE IS BEST IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE HUGE RAMIFICATIONS AND THE ADR ISN'T GIVING ANY
REAL ARRANGEMENT
 “COMPARE AND CONTRAST DIFFERENT SOURCES OF
LEGAL ADVICE AND SUPPORT FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION”

• ON ACCOUNT OF THE BUSINESS WORLD, DELIBERATE TECHNIQUES FOR DEBATE GOAL ARE IN
EVERY CASE BEST. THIS IS ON THE GROUNDS THAT GATHERINGS CAN COMPLETE THE
INTERACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR TIME ACCESSIBILITY AND COMFORT. FURTHERMORE, THE
TWO PLAYERS CAN KEEP UP WITH THEIR CLASSIFICATION AND THEIR STANDING IN THE
MARKET IS PROTECTED. CASE DOES NOT HAVE EVERY SINGLE SUCH BOUNDARY AND THUS, IT
IS THE MOST UN-FAVORED ANSWER FOR THE ISSUE. ADR KEEPS THE CYCLE TO PROCEED WITH
THE ASSENT OF THE GATHERINGS IN QUESTION. ONE OUGHT TO GO FOR CASE IF THE
ARRANGEMENT GIVEN BY THE ADR ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR ANY GATHERING AND THAT CAN
MAKE GENUINE MISFORTUNE IT. THE PROSECUTION TECHNIQUE IS BEST IN THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE HUGE RAMIFICATIONS AND THE ADR ISN'T GIVING ANY
REAL ARRANGEMENT
THANK YOU !

ANY QUESTION ?