An arbitration-only stance assumed by a commercial entity might serve it well in a given instance, but almost certainly not over the long run.
There's an inverse proposition to that as well, of course. A company intent on taking every contractual dispute straight to court pursuant to a scorched-earth policy is bound to get burned at some point.
It's just a flat business reality that some commercial disagreements are more amenable to being resolved through arbitration or another litigation alternative, with select others virtually demanding a fix through the formal adversarialism marking a court.
Attorneys from proven business law firms know that from experience, and their clients rely upon their counsel to make reasoned decisions when things go south with a contractual partner.
We note at the established Washington, D.C., metro law firm of David, Brody & Dondershine in Fairfax that our deep legal team always stands ready to take a matter to either arbitration or court. The former venue sometimes emerges as clearly preferential for saving time and money, with formal litigation occasionally being the better choice to promote a party's legal interests.
What is always true regarding the two strategies is that neither one of them can automatically be assumed to be the superior choice as a general matter. A recent law journal piece on arbitration-versus-litigation considerations rightly notes that both possibilities "warrant discussion and evaluation prior to the selection of a forum."
Every legal dispute has different material facts and needs to be closely analyzed from every relevant angle prior to a company principal making a decision on a dispute-resolution forum. Seasoned business lawyers with experience representing clients in both court and in arbitration can help a client make informed decisions.