Debunking Myths Related To International Disputes

Posted by Law Office of Mario L. Herman on March 8th, 2017

Whether European Franchisees or Indian franchisees, getting involved into disputes of international as well as domestic standards with rival firms or organizations regarding various issues is nothing uncommon. There may be cases of copyright infringement, misuse of brand name, unauthorized publication of information, etc. which needs to be handled by an ace International Franchisee Attorney. However, start-ups who have recently entered the industry as International Franchisee lawyers often suffer from misconceptions regarding the entire procedure due to their lack of practical experience. Therefore, we shall debunk some myths regarding international disputes now. Here are they for your reference. Check them out.

Myth 1: International disputes are settled by standardized methods only

This is partially a myth. While on one hand it is right that franchisee related corporate level disputes are settled by means of some standardized methods only, it is to be kept it mind that it is not a mechanical process. It is entirely up to the lawyer to understand which case should be solved by which method.

Myth 2: It is easier to solve consensual processes than adjunctive processes

This is a complete misconception. Just because the consensual procedure is passive in nature and focuses on mutually negotiated solution, there is no reason to believe that it is easier than the adjunctive process. Rather, we would say that consensual procedure also requires clear conception on part of the lawyer about which method should be applied for a specific type of consensual case. Here, for your further information let us inform you that an array of methods such as collaborative law, negotiation, etc. for handling a specific type of consensual case. Moreover, the convincing power of the lawyer should also be appreciably strong so that both the parties in legal strife can be convinced to agree upon a mutually acceptable solution. Hence, instead of considering that one method of franchisee law is easier than the other it is more practical to take into account that both the types of processes has their own sets of merits and demerits.

Myth 3: An experienced International Franchisee Attorney can solve any type of case

This statement is again partially correct. Let us explain it clearly; on one hand it is always recommended that you should go for a franchisee attorney who has years of experience in handling these types of cases. On the other hand, it should be simultaneously kept in mind that you should choose a professional who has worked for both franchiser side as well as franchisee side. This is because a lawyer who has in-depth experience in dealing with cases related to franchisee side would not be very spontaneous and proficient in dealing with a case that concerns a client belonging to the franchiser side. Hence, it is better to say that not only experience but specialized experience should be an imperative factor for choosing a franchisee lawyer.