The case with Bramson and Jones Companies is a demonstration of how on the current example to achieve a better estimation of law processes in terms of gaining more benefits. The case is full of reasoning as to the right choice of law model to resolve the conflict between two parties. In this respect, the role of arbitration or litigation is implied in the suspected results. For a customer of the law office, the goal is to return money for ball bearings and to diminish rumors of the opponent in defects having to be a reason for the trial. Bringing suit Bramson proved its right for making law fair decisions evaluate the situation. According to Redfern and Hunter (2004), the time prospects are vital in choosing the form of the trial. As Jones Machine Company ordered 50,000 ball bearings with payback in the long-term perspective, then there is a reason for Bramson Ball Bearing Company to insist on a sooner financial return for the products used.
Thus, the arbitration is more appropriate for the case. Moskin (2001) admits in his research as of arbitration versus litigation:
The absence of confidentiality obligations in arbitrations does not mean, however, that unilateral public disclosure respecting an arbitration is without risk. The fact that the arbitral hearings are inaccessible to the public can be taken to imply that no party may disclose to the public what transpires therein (5-16).
Thus, arbitration may be supported with the agreement within parties to have no disclosures of the scandal, so that not to spoil the current reputation of both sides of the conflict. In this case, the ability of participants to promote hearings diplomatically may serve as a guarantee to make more prospects about possible additional compensation of Jones to the sum of money for ball bearings. Thereupon, the costs for arbitrators should be taken into account. For the improvements of business relationships, there should be an obligatory agreement between two sides as of the Business Valuation Expert in Mediation (Pratt & Niculita, 2007).
On the other hand, Bramson should also take into account possible profits which can be gained after the process. Winning in the litigation process may provide a participant of the trial with more money, than in arbitration (Brunet, 2006). Thus, Bramson may guess whether to make it easier and faster or to promote a long-term process with more benefits in financial outcomes. Looking at the intentions of the plaintiff there should be immediate actions, so that, first, to confirm the lack of defects in ball bearings, second, to provide the procedure of money delivery by Jones. This is not a one-day process and may take more time, perhaps. Nevertheless, the Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain) (2005) outlines that “neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before the arbitrator(s) or the court to the evidence or arguments previously put before the DRB to obtain its decision, or to the reasons for dissatisfaction given in its notice of dissatisfaction” (3).
Thus, the necessity of arbitration in the above-mentioned case is more preferable for its peculiarities as of the time prospects and the procedure of hearings. About the second parameter, the algorithm of maintaining the hearings should presuppose the policy of non-disclo0sure of facts and details of the process (Committee on Business and Corporate Liti, 2006).
Reference
Brunet, E. J. (2006). Arbitration law in America: a critical assessment. Cambrioge: Cambridge University Press.
Committee on Business and Corporate Liti. (2006). Annual Review of Developments in Business and Corporate Litigation. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.
Institution of Civil Engineers (Great Britain). (2005). ICE Dispute Resolution Board procedure. London: Thomas Telford.
Moskin, M. (2001). Commercial contracts: strategies for drafting and negotiating, Vol. 1. New York: Aspen Publishers Online.
Pratt, S. P. and Niculita, A. V. (2007).Valuing a business: the analysis and appraisal of closely held companies (Ed. 5). New York: McGraw-Hill Professional.
Redfern, A. and Hunter, M. (2004). Law and practice of international commercial arbitration (Ed. 4). London: Sweet & Maxwell.