Continuing business relations avoided courts in favor of private settlement and arbitration

Evidence

If we look, not to treatises, but to the actual business of the courts, it could be argued that contract law, after 1850, was beginning a long slide into marginality. Courts were not equipped to handle business disputes as rapidly and efficiently as a brawling capitalist economy demanded. The doctrines were attractive and necessary; the rules were flexible enough; but judges were judges, not mediators. They named winners and losers. Where parties stood in continuing business relations with each other, they preferred not to litigate at all. They worked their problems out by themselves, or went to arbitration. — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 3065

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Milgrom law-merchant reputation/arbitration material and to modern ADR debates. — connects to: Only some dispute types are apt for settlement by adjudication — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3262; Forum choice between state and federal courts favored corporate defendants — Lawrence M. Friedman, A History of American Law, 2378; Private arbitration can effectively substitute for courts — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 40 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Frequent business counterparts resolve disputes privately to protect ongoing relationships #expands (0.95)
• Private arbitration can effectively substitute for courts #corroborates (0.80) — Lisa Bernestein, Opting out of the Legal System, 40