Ideally, individuals and companies that negotiate construction contracts will include language that stipulates how any future disputes will be resolved. In many cases, arbitration is the preferred method of dispute resolution. This is because courts in Pennsylvania and throughout the country typically won’t overturn an arbitrator’s decision. In addition, arbitration cases generally take less time to resolve compared to formal litigation. However, those who enter into a construction contract should never assume that arbitration will best meet their needs.
Depending on the facts of a case, it may actually be easier to resolve a matter in state court. In some cases, arbitration isn’t necessary less expensive than attempting to resolve a matter before a judge. Furthermore, a case that is currently ongoing in California is challenging the assertion that a court can’t overturn an arbitration decision if that decision goes against state law.
Ideally, parties to a construction contract will review its arbitration clause before agreeing to the deal. In some cases, it may be possible to define the rules of an arbitration proceeding to fit the needs of the parties to the contract. For instance, the discovery process can be broadened or narrowed depending on the scope of the disagreement. Language can also be added to the clause that requires a decision to comply with accepted law in the state where the dispute takes place.
It is generally in a person or company’s best interest to have construction disputes resolved as quickly as possible. This can limit the amount of time and money spent on doing so. It can also ensure that the scope of the dispute is as narrow as possible, which may make it easier to obtain a satisfactory ruling. An attorney may be able to help those involved in a construction dispute.
