A key question about whether arbitration is a fair and effective way to resolve disputes is whether it’s truly effective at getting companies to agree to the terms of a transaction.

A 2012 study from the American Bar Association found that arbitration is usually an ineffective way to reach agreement on fair terms and, in some cases, an expensive and time-consuming process.

But, experts say, arbitration has a place in cases that are about a company’s interests and is typically used for settlements between businesses.

For instance, in one arbitration case between two car dealerships in New Jersey, the arbitrator decided to settle with the dealership over its refusal to sell a certain model of car.

The arbitrator found that the dealership’s failure to offer a buyer a good car was a material reason for the dealership not selling the vehicle.

The dealership agreed to buy the car from the dealership and sell it to another car dealer.

The arbitration agreement, which was negotiated between the dealership, its buyers, and the dealership itself, called for the buyers to pay $100,000 for each car.

The buyers paid the dealership $60,000 and $15,000 each, according to a complaint in the case.

Under the terms, the dealership agreed that the buyer would pay the dealership a lump sum of $100 a month for life.

But the dealership also agreed to provide the buyer with a credit report, a car inspection, and a car insurance policy for the buyer.

The dealership also promised to refund the buyer the amount of the credit report.

The buyer agreed to the arbitration agreement and paid the buyer $300.

The other dealership then agreed to a separate agreement to buy another car for $200.

The buyer agreed and paid $300 for the car.

Under that agreement, the buyers paid $100 each.

The arbitration agreement required the dealership to reimburse the buyer for the difference between the purchase price and the amount paid by the buyer and to reimburse for the costs of the insurance policy.

The buyers also paid the arbitrators for the services provided.

The arbitrators also ordered the dealership back to the bargaining table and to resolve the dispute.

The dealers agreed to arbitrate the dispute on a date to be announced, and to pay the arbiters an amount based on the arbitration’s cost.

The deal was approved in January 2013 and took effect in March 2014.

But several other dealerships have filed lawsuits against the dealership in New York and New Jersey over similar disputes.