Please help me reply to this discussion post.

There are three alternatives to the court system for settling disputes. They include submitting to the quasi-judicial power of an administrative body, arbitration, and mediation.

Administrative bodies have the power to settle disputes and enforce their rulings in so far as the dispute falls within their scope of regulation and governance. This is an efficient and effective way to settle disputes because the agency that wrote the regulations often initiates proceedings, hears the case, offers a ruling, and can enforce its ruling.

Arbitration is the process of submitting a dispute to a third party, outside of the judicial system, that will decide on the matter. In this process the disputing parties agree that the decision of the arbiter is binding and will be abided by.

Mediation is a process where disputing parties enlist the help of a mediator whose job it is to persuade the parties to come to some form of agreement or compromise and settle their dispute. With mediation the mediator does not have the power to require or enforce a settlement.

If I were in a dispute, I would start with mediation. I like this process because it gets both parties talking and has a greater likelihood of resolving the dispute via some form of compromise where both parties are conceding something, therefore providing for a resolution that is fair and tolerable for both parties. I also like that with mediation there is no binding agreement to settle, which provides the opportunity to walk away from the mediation process at any time if it isn't constructive and seek out another avenue for settling the dispute without any real consequences.

Finally, I think there are alternatives to the court system because in generally, taking anything to court and litigating it is a slow moving, cumbersome, and expensive process that can go on for years before a resolution is attained.For these reasons alternatives have been created that are more simple, efficient, cost effective.