Answer: Negotiation, conciliation, mediation, and Arbitration, The Pete lawyer should go for ADR to get the compensation they sought before the court because the case could go either way.
Step-by-step explanation:
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a process by which the court of law allows parties to a dispute the opportunity to settle the dispute without involving the judge in the adjudication of the case brought before the court of law. The court usually allows the use of ADR in the settlement of a civil case,it is a measure to used by the court with a view to foster peaceful relations between the litigant and the respondent in the case .it involves the following forms
Negotiation : This is the process by which a discussion is initiated between the parties to a dispute with a view to peacefully resolved the dispute between the two parties. At the end of the discussion an agreement will be reached which will set the terms upon which the resolution of the dispute will be based.The discussion may lasted some days within those days they may disagree to later agree but at the end an agreement will be reached that will make the settlement of the dispute a win - win situation.
Conciliation : This is a process of resolving dispute without the involvement of the court of law.it is also done with a view to ensure that the two parties to a dispute continue to live together or relate together peacefully. The process is used to remove the strong sense of animosity that had hitherto existed between the two parties which necessitated the court action.
Mediation : This is a negotiation done with a view to settle the differences between the two parties to a dispute which is done by a third party who is neutral in the case.This person will be fair to both parties in the resolution of the dispute it is an intervention done in order to resolve a dispute peacefully between the two parties in dispute.
Arbitration : This is the determination of a dispute by a person who will be fair to both parties in the dispute and which both parties to the dispute had both agree that the person be allowed to resolve the dispute between them. That is the both parties will both agree to choose the person who will see to the resolution of the dispute.
If I were a Pete lawyer I would have gone for the use of ADR, because the case could swing in either pendulum. Since a case is won in the law court based on the evidence presented before the court which is very credible. If Pete lawyer could claim that the ATV is defective, and support his claim with an evidence so also the ATV lawyer could also claim that the ATV is not defective and also support it with an evidence that the accident was cause by human error due to overspending and that it has nothing to do with the ATV and that none of the buyer had complained before about the defective of the ATV. Therefore based on these two arguments the case could go either way, the best is to go for ADR which is a win - win situation in which they will get their compensation which may not be up to the amount they requested and the ATV manufacturer will also be able to protect the image of their firm by settling the case out of court.
The case is a little bit similar to a case between a manufacturer of a drink and one of their customers in my own part of the world, the customers in question claim that he saw some impurities in the drinks he bought and decided to sue the manufacturer to court to claim damages for the injuries the impurities might have caused him. The two parties were able to settle the dispute out of court which made the case a win- win situation.