😀
I know the feeling.
Arbitration
> If the two parties mutually agree on a the third party and the terms of just how binding an agreement will be (as in Kent's example), then I see nothing wrong with such an arrangement. But I also see the benefit of any such third party having undergone a bit of training in mediation/arbitration, so as to avoid making some star-chamber-of-one recommendations that might just end up in court anyhow. There are folks that do this already; maybe it would be good to have more...
I think the reality is that most surveyors in a jurisdiction know whose judgment they trust already. They know whose work they've never, ever had a problem with. The best arbitrators will be people with long practical experience, broad knowledge, excellent reputations, and who are well liked. That thins the herd drastically. Failing all four, impartiality, long experience, and excellent reputation would do for me. Contrary to what you may have heard, land surveying isn't a popularity contest.
Arbitration
> Something like this?
>
> MA real estate bar Assoc. Dispute Resolution
From the description, that sounds more like the baby-splitting style of mediation, rather than a more straight-forward arbitration of technical surveying questions.
