John Wilson, owner of Wilson Construction Company, and Andrew Carrigan, owner of Carrigan Brick and Masonry, Inc., are at odds regarding a construction contract between the two companies.Wilson claims that Carrigan breached the contract due to non-performance of certain masonry work; Carrigan defends on the basis that Wilson did not permit him adequate access to the work site in order to complete the work by the designated contract deadline.Wilson claims liquidated damages as a result of the breach; the contract stipulates that upon breach, the non-breaching party is entitled to $1,000 in damages for every day the work is not performed beyond the contract deadline.

Wilson is considering mediation or arbitration as an alternative to civil litigation, but he is concerned that "justice may not be served" if he submits to a method of alternative dispute resolution.Are his concerns justified? Is justice better guaranteed if Wilson and Carrigan litigate their case? Is mediation or arbitration actually preferable to civil litigation? Regardless of what disputing parties prefer, should court systems require that plaintiffs and defendants submit to arbitration or meditation before being entitled to their "day in court?"