CASE STUDY
COMMERCIAL DISPUTE:
Two legal entities have a disagreement regarding the performance of an agreement signed. We refer to two designers who signed a contract for the presentation of a conceptual design of a building. The payment was supposed to happen immediately after the detailed information related to the conceptual design, the files, on which a whole team worked for a month and a half, were handed over to the client. The designers even claim to have passed a development with a level of detail even closer to the one of a technical design. The client states that he is not satisfied with the quality of work and does not wish to make payment after receiving the documentation.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED:
After meetings and mediation, the parties agree that they will make concessions, which is expressed as follows: the client will pay 90% of the agreed price, and the design organisation agrees to receive 90% of the sum of the signed contract.
LABOUR DISPUTE:
Two colleagues in the workplace have an overly strained relationship that divides the team in which they work. This situation creates tension between the groups, which is setting the work backwards. The employer does not want to take sides, because he cares about both of his specialists, but he also does not want his business to suffer from this conflict. He pays for a mediation procedure.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED:
The disputing parties agreed that the matter was cleared up and has been overcome, that they themselves, thanks to the mediation, became good friends afterwards, despite raising the tone of the voice and ridicule in earlier phases of the communication.
LABOUR DISPUTE:
An employer decides to fire a long-serving employee before retirement. For this purpose, he was promoted to a position with a trial period of 6 months. After two months, the employee was fired on the pretext that he was not up to the job.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED: Instead of the employer being convicted of both discrimination and poor working conditions, the employee has agreed to receive compensation from the employer.
CONSUMER DISPUTE:
A customer of a large chain of appliance stores purchases a home water carbonator. Subsequently, it turns out that it does not work, and the customer takes it back to the store for a complaint. It was paid with a card with the names of the buyer written on it.
The customer leaves the water carbonator for a note with his name written on it, ID information is taken, and the original receipt is photocopied and attached to the documents processed by the store.
As a result, it turns out that the water carbonator cannot be repaired, and another like it is not currently available. A refund is offered.
The problem arises when the customer states that they cannot go to the store again because they are in another city, and the store manager states that the original receipt needs to be shown live again. The receipt was also lost during this time. In such a case, the store refuses to refund the amount on the card.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED:
To issue a copy of the original receipt from the store so that the administrative procedure can be completed on the one hand, and the customer can get back the amount for his purchase on the other hand.
CIVIL DISPUTE:
A citizen parks near his home on municipal property. There are also other cars parked in this place, and the place itself is located opposite the house of a former traffic police officer. The municipal property has been improved for parking by the former policeman, but it remains not his personal property. The citizen parked his car for a few days.
The ex-policeman has asked his current colleagues about the ownership of the car and who, despite the GDPR, are exporting data about the owner. Threats and insults followed from both sides. Re-parking the car, the ex-cop scratches the car with a key. There is a camera attached to the car that captures what happened.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED:
The car driver leaves his phone if he needs to move the car. The ex-policeman helps smooth out the scratch on the car with a special paste. There is good synergy between the two former contenders right now.
FAMILY DISPUTE:
A boy is born to a young family soon after their wedding. Soon after, she "caught" her husband with a "call lady" while he wasn't expecting her to come home any time soon. Not long after, the lady goes to buy food for the baby and the house, and realizes that the bank card does not work. It turns out that the savings and money from their wedding were withdrawn and spent by the man on gambling. Meanwhile, the man also steals the bank card of another relative of his wife's family in order to gamble. Before the marriage, the man held a good position with a consulting company.
PRIOR TO THE DIVORCE:
This family used mediation to resolve their property disputes as well as how the child would be raised.
ТHE PARTIES AGREED: Firstly, on the manner of raising the child; and, secondly, to recover half of the sum collected at their wedding celebration.