Search

The article focuses on the choice between arbitration and litigation regarding disputes. It is stated that arbitration is better for subcontractors and litigation is better for contractors. One should arbitrate when his case is strong on the facts, but weak on the law. In this case two cases are being discussed. One case is from New Jersey, regarding a dispute related to faults in designing of plant and the payment due, between the contractor and the owner of the firm. Another case is from New York State, regarding a dispute related to wrongful termination of contract from the owner's side resulting in a loss to the contractor. The contract in this case was not containing an arbitration clause, so it was headed to state court. Both the cases are different in their controversial amounts. The New Jersey case started with a simple demand for arbitration. while the New York case the litigation had a more tortuous beginning. The proceedings related to the cases continued for a couple of years.

The article reports that the New Jersey Supreme Court released a decision that said a parent can bind a minor child to an agreement to arbitrate. The case involves a skate park that parents of a child complained was not well supervised. The court ruled that a release in a skating park's contract by a parent on behalf of a minor is enforceable. The case filed by the minor's parent's was dismissed. The decision was significant because it certified the question of whether a parent can bind a minor child to arbitration.

The article reports on a case in which a New Jersey appeals court held that an arbitration confidentiality agreement alone is insufficient to uphold a protective order sealing documents filed in court. In order for files to be sealed against use in court, defendants must show that making the files public would be damaging. In this case, the defendant had failed to do so. The defendant in the case had represented the plaintiff in a previous case in a lawsuit against the plaintiff's ex-employer. The employer settled secretly with the plaintiff's lawyer for a large sum, but had settled with the plaintiff for a much smaller amount. The plaintiff, in turn, sued his previous legal representative for bribery. It was at this time that the previous lawyer tried to have the documents sealed.