Question: All jurists believe in judicial restraint to some degree and all are activists in some situations.
Do you agree or disagree with this quote? Please give examples of both philosophies.
I sell tax services to corporations. I sign a new client to a one-year contract. This new client, is my largest client and can possible refer me to other large clients.
Half way through the contract, the client's son decides that he wants to give the tax business to a new friend that he made at a bar. Assume that this action is a material breach of the contract.
Should I litigate/sue or seek redress under a form of alternative dispute resolution ?
Explain the pros and cons of each approach.
SHOULD YOU LITIGATE OR SEEK REDRESS UNDER A FORM OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION.
Pros of litigation:
1. Since there is a breach of contract and the decision is likely to be in your favor the final outcome will be obligatory on your client. He cannot avoid the judgment.
2. The outcome will be enforceable on the client.
3. If there is a wrong judgment and it is against you, then litigation provides the option of appealing against the judgment.
4. There are well defined procedures that will protect your interests in case of litigation. For instance there is a pretrial sharing of information and cross examination.
5. The principles of law will be followed properly in litigation.
6. You do not need the permission of anyone to file a lawsuit.
Cons of litigation:
1. Litigation can be costly;
2. The lawyer and the court take charge of the ...
This answer provides you an excellent discussion on judicial restraint