Andrei Kerensky, CEO of the Malenkov Electronic Surveillance Corporation, entered negotiations with Thomas John King, president and chair of the board for Beckett Industries, Inc., the purpose of which was to develop a new security system for Beckett. The system would use a newly designed security system based on a new laser electronic coding system developed by engineers at Malenkov. King and Kerensky finalized the deal, and the security system was installed at Beckett. After Malenkov’s engineers installed the system, security personnel and engineering technicians at Beckett made some subtle alterations in the system’s computerized control system. Shortly thereafter, the entire system crashed. When Malenkov’s bill was not paid, Kerensky went to see King at Beckett’s corporate headquarters. During a short encounter, King informed Kerensky that Beckett was not going to pay Kerensky and Malenkov because the system had crashed. King argued that Malenkov’s engineers were responsible for the breakdown, while Kerensky insisted that the modifications made by the engineers at Beckett were at fault because of their unauthorized and incompetently rendered modifications to the system. Kerensky wants to sue King and Beckett but is hesitant to do so because the primary factual issues in the case focus on the engineering modifications.

Consequently, he is apprehensive that a judge and jury will be lost by the technical jargon that may be used at trial. What alternatives are available to Kerensky?