{"id":1886,"date":"2026-01-19T16:51:40","date_gmt":"2026-01-19T15:51:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/?p=1886"},"modified":"2026-01-19T20:53:34","modified_gmt":"2026-01-19T19:53:34","slug":"successful-negotiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/successful-negotiation\/","title":{"rendered":"SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATION"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone size-medium wp-image-1879 aligncenter\" src=\"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/474-276-Vignetta-tutte-le-versioni-300x175.png\" alt=\"\" width=\"300\" height=\"175\" srcset=\"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/474-276-Vignetta-tutte-le-versioni-300x175.png 300w, https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/474-276-Vignetta-tutte-le-versioni.png 474w\" sizes=\"auto, (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>We often think that negotiating is difficult, complex, tiring and ultimately not worth it.<\/p>\n<p>But just as often we do not fully reflect on how &#8216;negotiating&#8217; can be more effective than &#8216;litigating&#8217; in, say, a court of law.<\/p>\n<p>A practical case may help.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Client Company<\/strong><br \/>\nFood packaging Company<\/p>\n<p><strong>Requirement of Client<\/strong><br \/>\nNeed for legal assistance due to legal action brought by an employee for an injury suffered while using\u00a0 machinery<\/p>\n<p><strong>Elements of dispute<\/strong><br \/>\nThe amount claimed as compensation, which in itself is significant, appears also to be overestimated.<\/p>\n<p>The client&#8217;s insurance company does not intend to pay, pending the criminal investigation and alleging improper use of the machinery by the employee.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Traditional (legal) approach &#8211; in a nutshell<\/strong><br \/>\nInitiation of legal (civil) proceedings, drafting and filing of deeds, participation in hearings, examination of witnesses, admission of experts, drafting and filing of pleadings, first instance judgement, possible appeal and\/or following proceedings, possible enforcement proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><strong>The approach taken <\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Rather than focusing solely on the purely legal elements, concentrating only on liability and its percentage allocation, the degree of fault and\/or causation, the burden of proof and the party liable, etc., it was deemed appropriate to proceed with a different approach.<\/p>\n<p>By initiating an intense phase of negotiation between the various parties involved, each represented by its own lawyer, the &#8216;real&#8217; underlying interests of the parties were above all taken into account.<\/p>\n<p>A significant and enlightening picture emerged, since the main and common interest lay in the wish to be able to settle the dispute quickly.<\/p>\n<p>The inspection of the client company&#8217;s premises and of the machinery that was the source of the accident, carried out by technical experts, by agreement between the parties (i.e. not during a court-appointed technical consultancy), revealed: a) a partial carelessness on the part of the employee in the use of the machinery, b) a partial superficiality in the training provided, c) a drafting of the machinery instruction manual that was not strictly accurate.<\/p>\n<p>It was evident that identifying and ascertaining liability, quantifying it in percentage terms, and satisfying the burden of proof were arduous tasks, typical of a long, complex and articulated civil trial.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, each of the parties had further underlying interests, interests that the court proceedings could certainly not satisfy: the employee needed prompt and full compensation to meet the significant costs of rehabilitation, the client company wanted to maintain a good collaborative relationship with the employee, the company producing the machinery wanted to avoid damage to its corporate image.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Conclusion of the case<\/strong><br \/>\nNegotiations, talks and communication exchanges focused on the real interests rightly prevailed, also thanks to the active participation and good sense shown by all.<\/p>\n<p>What were the conclusions ?<br \/>\n-the employee was compensated and the relationship with the employer, from a relational point of view, improved;<\/p>\n<p>-the client company did not suffer any premium increase in the subsequent contract with its insurance company and, at the same time, implemented training in the use of the machinery;<\/p>\n<p>-the company manufacturing the machinery avoided reputational damage and has initiated a corrective process in the drafting of the instruction manual, thus averting similar cases in the future.<\/p>\n<p>The satisfaction of all the parties involved was therefore great, as they were able to settle the dispute confidentially, with limited costs and in a short time, in the face of a judicial situation that from the outset had appeared articulated, complex, lengthy, tedious (even in the reconstruction of facts occurring at a distance of time) and more expensive.<\/p>\n<p>And equally great was the satisfaction of\u00a0 having, once again, applied common sense principles and favoured negotiation tools (rather than conflictual ones): this reinforced the conviction that only negotiation (when conducted with a proactive spirit and in good faith) and\/or mediation (when understood in its original purpose and correctly used), can resolve disputes without sacrificing anyone&#8217;s rights or disregarding the obligations of others, while at the same time saving business relationships and even creating new relational and business opportunities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&nbsp; We often think that negotiating is difficult, complex, tiring and ultimately not worth it. But just as often we do not fully reflect on how &#8216;negotiating&#8217; can be more effective than &#8216;litigating&#8217; in, say, a court of law. A practical case may help. Client Company Food packaging Company Requirement of Client Need for legal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"gallery","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111],"tags":[117,118,116,114,112,113,115,119],"class_list":["post-1886","post","type-post","status-publish","format-gallery","hentry","category-negotiation-mediation","tag-adr-en","tag-alternative-dispute-resolution-en","tag-dispute-resolution","tag-food-industry","tag-mediation","tag-negotiation","tag-negotiations","tag-reputational-damage","post_format-post-format-gallery"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1886","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1886"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1886\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2055,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1886\/revisions\/2055"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bcrlegal.net\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}