1. The disputants themselves - not the mediator - take the decision: The result is an agreement that was developed by the involved parties during the mediation process. In case a dispute is decided by court or via arbitration the parties finally have to accept the verdict delivered by the court or the arbitration-board. Even court settlements may be of a different quality than a mediative solution, for such a settlement is usually developed under the judicial endeavour to end a conflict as soon as possible. And so the basic problem that caused the conflict will barely be eleminated.

2. During a mediation proceeding the real concerns and needs of the disputants can be considered, aiming a genuine approach. By means of litigation the contrasting positions are submitted to the court and that way get even more accentuated in order to enforce the own purpose.

3. A mediation proceeding takes considerably less time than litigation or arbitration. Sometimes an agreement can be reached within a single mediative meeting, even for complicated conflicts the proceeding usually ends within a few weeks.

4. As a consequence mediation is a less expensive route to follow for dispute settlement. The expenses for the court and the attorney at law normally are measured according to the value of the claim and duration of the proceeding. Particularily for long-term proceedings expenses can be enormous, which is even more disagreeable if the concerned party furthermore loses the case. Instead mediation offers a way of dispute settlement that benefits all involved parties.

5. All disputants necessarily volunteer in participating the process. Everybody can exit the procedure at each point in time.

6. The "classical" way of dispute resolution through litigation is still open, if mediation fails to solve the conflict or is no longer required. The parties only "lose" a few days and do not forgo any of their rights - whereas starting litigation immediately usually obstructs a mutual agreement later.

7. When a conflict is solved via mediation a prospective cooperation between the former diputants is still possible, whereas after litigation all valuable relations between the opponents typically end.

8. Mediation offers a confidential process, while court hearings generally happen in public. Consequently public notice of the conflict together with possible damage for the image of the involved person or company can be prevented.

9. Fact-finding as proceeded during litigation is not necessary for a mediative dispute resolution, which effects both expenses and time required for the solution positively. Mediation faces the future, not the past. It is not about blaming somebody, but aiming a dispute settlement by the involved parties themselves.

10. The elaborated mediative resolution is an agreement for the future, whereas courts necessarily judge about something that already happened. Mediation aims to arrange a satisfiable agreement between the conflicting parties for their future.