|
|
Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly@gami.com>:
I don’t think the result was a lot different than it would have been in
front of a jury.
I would be hard pressed to believe that. With the description you have given of the arbitrators' qualification, the decision was most probably arrived on by logic and relevant world experience. Arguments that appeal to a jury's emotions and "common sense" (based on ignorance and lack of relevant experience) were most probably wasted on you and if the lawyers were smart, they would not have bothered with them.
Upon second though, you may be right, that if a jury had heard the same case as you had, they would most probably have come to the same conclusion. But the more important question that needs to be asked is this: If the lawyers had to present the case to a jury of people with no clue about aviation, would they have presented the same case? I greatly doubt it.
Hamid
|
|