Ok, so instead of just going to court, I have to do arbitration first, and then go to court. Sorry, I don't see what your added value is.

1. Recognition of arbitral award is much faster.

2. Awards can be recognized in 146 countries.

3. In 96% of the cases recognition is not even needed, the losing party pays up.

1. Sure, it is much faster than getting a court involved but I think that in most case where you intervene, an agreement would have been reached without going to court either.

2. That just means that you found 146 countries where a breach of contract is illegal.

3. How do you measure the 96% ? I am doubtful of such a high statistic. Do you provide legal help if going to court is necessary to enforce the arbitration ? With such a high rate of success, it would be profitable for you and be really helpful.

My basic claim is that your service is indeed cheap but is logically probably worth little more than what you charge. Going into court is much more expensive and I doubt that you really can avoid such an event.

1. I fail to see how using an arbitration clause in your contracts results in only disputes that would be resolved without court.

2. It means 146 countries have signed the 1958 New York convention.

3. The 96% is a CIArb statistic.