Disputes that end with a verbal agreement are likely to fail.

When parties say, “We’re in agreement,” they’re really saying, “I assume you agree with what I think the agreement is,” which rarely is the case.

Regardless of how the ending of a dispute is reached, there is no agreement until it’s drafted as a document that all parties agree to sign.

New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 is an example of parties having completely different understandings of an agreement. The treaty consists simply of a preamble and three articles. Great Britain prepared drafts of the treaty in both English and the native Māori language. Unfortunately, the two versions are not exact translations. In the English language version the tribal chiefs ceded sovereignty over their territories to the Queen. The Māori language version uses words asserting the Māori would retain full sovereignty over their homes, land, and its resources. The controversy over the translation continues to this day.

Whether the dispute is personal, business, or international, if it ends in an agreement, it should then be drafted, reviewed, and signed in order for it to be legally agreed upon.

Guidelines mediators use to help disputants develop their agreement include:

• Specific and concise language that’s understood by all parties.

• Issues to be resolved in a final, permanent form without conditions.

• Defined key elements of who does what, when, where, and how.

• Clear mutual consideration (when something of value is exchanged).

——————-——————————————————————————————————————

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.

Every mediator helps parties negotiate personal affiliations, which some approach as Collaborative Relationships and others as Transactional.

Transactional relationships are based on “give and take” exchanges where parties constantly evaluate the association in light of their own immediate priorities. The relationship, then, is conditional. As parties are constantly “keeping score,” there is a lack of trust, mutual support, as well as the potential for bad feelings and resentment, especially when one party abandons that connection for something better.

Advocates of Transactional Relationships contend human interactions by their very nature are transactional and that long-term, mutually beneficial relationships are simply an idealization of family ones.

Long-term mutually beneficial relationships are not a rarity, as these advocates would have you believe. Collaborative Relationships value strong ties and are willing to invest the time and energy to work cooperatively.

Transactional advocates have no meaningful, long-term relationships, and as anyone in their network knows, they will be abandoned when they no longer support the goals of the true matter at hand.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Fred Jandt is the author of “How to Survive a Mediation,” available now at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and wherever books are sold.