Resolution the Scenario for This

¶ … Resolution The scenario for this case study is as follows: Sue and Tom are business partners. They have a partnership in which they purchase and renovate homes and apartment buildings. They have worked together as partners for five years and currently own seven properties. A few months ago they talked about purchasing another property. Sue was in favor of the purchase but Tom was not sure because he believed the asking price was too high. Tom told Sue he would let her know his decision by a specific date.

On the date that he was suppose to give his answer he was out-of-town on vacation. Two days later Sue purchased the property in her name. When Tom returned, he told Sue he thought the partnership should buy the property. Sue told Tom she had bought the property in her name alone. Tom asked Sue to put the property in joint name so the partnership could own it. Sue refused.

The analysis begins with the facts; 1) a business partnership existed that was mutual and agreed upon; 2) other transactions involving real estate have been entered into by these same business partners; 3) it should be presumed that the prior transactions were enacted based upon a mutual agreement; 4) that it is the habit of the business partners to purchase only upon agreement properties that will be held in the name of the business partnership; 5) it should also be presumed that the partners have disagreed on purchases in the past, and that the disagreement has led to properties that were not purchased in the name of the business partnership; 6) that the purchase of the property in question was discussed between the partners, and that while one partner, Sue, was advocating purchase of the property, the other partner, Tom, decided that he was in need of more time to consider the transaction details; 7) Tom agreed to consider the purchase as recommended by Sue, but stipulated that he would contact Sue with his decision as her partner on a given date, by a given time; 8) Tom did not make that contact; 9) the failure to contact with intent or in support of the purchase led Sue to act independent of Tom.

The dispute, based on this case study and facts, is that Sue will not agree to convert the purchase of the property that she made independent of Tom and the business into the name of the business after Tom finally decided to contact her to say that he agreed to the purchase in the name of the company. Presumptions: Tom and Sue have a successful partnership based on mutual agreement. That they have resolved their differences as business partners successfully in the past.

That absent the agreement of both partners, there is no purchase of properties in the name of the business. Therefore, it is recommended that before this case goes to a court, that the partners engage in a mediated dispute resolution. This will save the company the problems that might adversely impact its stability and credit rating should the partners engage in a civil suit one against the other.

Mediated dispute resolution will help the partners to understand each partner's position without the emotions that come to exist between people who have been business partners where they rely one upon the other in making decisions on a daily basis. Gene Stephens (1989) says that one of the things that people will learn as concerns the legal system, is that all people have rights or claims that come into conflict with the rights and claims of another at some point in their lives (21). This is the case before us.

Tome and Sue have come to that point in their business relationship where it has become necessary to determine if an action independent of the other is to be considered a personal transaction, or a transaction that arises out of the business relationship and partnership. As such, it might be best if an independent arbitrator helps these partners work through this, and in so doing, perhaps save the more important partnership. Ian L. Stewart (2001) disagrees that arbitration is useful (509).

Stewart says: In the rapidly expanding Internet environment, time is one of the most valuable commodities. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy constitutes a valuable asset to the Internet community, because it provides quick and economical solutions to many domain name disputes. The Policy does have some limitations, however, and in order for the Policy to maintain a strong foundation, arbitrators should not expand its reach into areas best left to courts of law. Unrestrained arbitration decisions based on good intentions have corrupted the Policy.

By exercising a little restraint, ICANN's dispute resolution providers can still save a good policy and allow the appropriate cases to be heard by courts of law (509)." In other words, Stewart is suggesting that going for arbitration is the quick fix, and that the quick fix absent the law as applied by those best qualified to interpret and apply the law, might perhaps result in one party not receiving the fullest benefit of the law.

It is a good point, but not a point that applies to cases that are so simple in nature as is Tom and Sue's. Also, if taking a court action can impact their business in an adverse way, then it remains in the best interest of Tom and Sue in their business to resolve the problem without the benefit of a legal expertise whose qualifications are probably more than this situation needs. Linda R.

Singer refers to mediation as the "sleeping giant," because of its flexibility, which makes it fit businesses of all sizes and appropriate for dispute resolution within those varying sized businesses (70). In the case of Tom and Sue, we really do not have the details of the size of their business, but we know that their partnership consists of just the two of them, because there are no other partners involved in this dispute.

Singer points out that a mediator can help the parties to move beyond their sticking point by working through those sticking points, which brings them closer to conflict resolution (70). Sandra E. Gleason (1997) says that successful dispute resolution is often a way of organizing the partnership's priorities (70).

Gleason says that questions to be resolved in dispute resolution should begin with some basic questions and answers: What are your goals for the process (What is the mission)? What barriers do you see in the accomplishment of your goals? What opportunities do you foresee? What are your interests/needs? What do you personally hope to accomplish? What do you see as the most critical issues to be resolved in this mediation process? What do you see as the most important issues for the group to address? What is at stake for you personally? Why are you willing to participate in this process? Whom do you represent? (70)" These are a few of the questions that might prove.