Abstract
Despite the current publicity and popularity of alternative forms of dispute resolution (ADR), trial lawyers are urging a careful evaluation of the trade‐offs involved in choosing between traditional adjudication and ADR, both in general and in construction disputes specifically. The writer first presents recent evidence that casts some doubt on the justification for complaints against our system of formal litigation. He then discusses the major factors to be weighed in choosing between traditional adjudication and an ADR technique by parties involved in construction disputes. Among the factors considered are costs, certainty, sufficiency of information, the right of review, privacy, and guidance. He concludes with the contention that arbitration and other ADR techniques can be advantageous in many cases, so long as they are voluntary rather than mandatory.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
