4 ms·
Lawyers were not involved; the point of arbitration was supposed to be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve the dispute. Accepting arbitration removed your abi
by MattPalmer1086 2y ago
Lawyers were not involved; the point of arbitration was supposed to be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve the dispute. Accepting arbitration removed your ability to sue later.
I naively believed that the process would be vaguely fair. It never occurred to me that they would allow the other side to see what I said, but not allow me to challenge (or even see) what the other side said.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> Lawyers were not involved; the point of arbitration was supposed to be a quicker and cheaper way to resolve the dispute Arbitration isn’t small claims. It’s an order of magnitude cheaper than litigation. But it’s still subject to complex rules; you should have counsel when pursuing it. (And hopes akin to self representation in court without.) > never occurred to me that they would allow the other side to see what I said, but not allow me to challenge (or even see) what the other side said Which venue? This sounds more like a procedural errors during preliminary. If you honestly believe they acted incorrectly, I’d be curious how a properly-filed complaint would have been received.