Statement Before the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Finance House Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee, on August 4, 1978, Concerning Dispute Resolution Acts, S 957, HR 2482, HR 2965 (From Access to Justice, P 84-98, February 13 and 27, 1979, See NCJ-75918)

• NCJ Number: 75919
• Author(s): M Budnitz
• Date Published: 1979
• Length: 15 pages
• Corporate Author: National Consumer Law Ctr
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Legislative/Regulatory Material
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

In testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee regarding 1978 legislation on dispute resolution, the director of the National Consumer Law Center recommends that the proposed law cover only programs for resolving disputes between an individual and a business or institution.

Abstract

Although legislation which attempts to deal with all types of minor disputes is commendable, this approach could result in diffuse and ineffective use of limited funds. The wide variety of disputes and the many different types of mechanisms available make dispute resolution a complex matter. The design of each mechanism must be based on the key features of the disputes involved and account for characteristics of participants. Other considerations include the type of third party intermediary needed and the nature of the reward that will best resolve a dispute. If programs are funded to deal with every kind of minor dispute that occurs frequently, resources will be spread too thin to allow meaningful comparisons among different approaches, and the act's progress will be limited. Congress therefore should confine the law to cases involving individuals who have controversies with businesses or institutions. Because personal disputes are subjective and often can be handled by community social agencies, they should not be included in the initial years of the program. The regular court system, however, does not effectively respond to an individual's conflict with a business or institution. The money appropriated under this act could be most effectively used by funding mechanisms to handle consumer disputes. Consumers already file millions of complaints with public agencies each year, and a dispute program would benefit from an existing data base and an established network of consumer advocacy organizations. The act should not restrict access to the courts but allow the individual to choose between court and nonjudicial procedures. The community should be involved in planning dispute resolution projects, and any program must have formal ties with appropriate law enforcement agencies so that illegal practices are brought to their attention. Funding for dispute resolution mechanisms sponsored by businesses should be prohibited.