Unhappy Co-Owners

Unhappy Co-Owners

Patty Saltkill

PPA 605: Negotiations, Bargaining, and Conflict Management

October 1, 2012

Shawn Gillen

Ashford University

BATNA

When I inherited the property, I wanted it for a specific purpose that included a tradition and made me anchored to a specific outcome. My father’s friend who owned the other half of the property did not want to carry on the tradition of splitting the time at the property and wanted both to sell to a developer for a sum that was above fair market value. Since for him it seems his BATNA was to sell his share to a third party to make a profit has changed the BATNA for me as well as started negotiations over. The original idea is to purchase the property for the purpose of carrying on a tradition that I have had. The third party is unknown to me and has no personal interest to the property, which means there would be no anchor for that reason.

If the third party and I have had negotiations and they have failed with neither party willing to negotiate further then the Court scenario is a good one. The ability to alter my BATNA in the negotiations would be a better option for my purposes. I need to research the third party and find out what may be their demands and wants in the negotiation that they have not advised me of.

When it comes to the BATNA for the property the court selling the property would be the best alternative if a suitable negotiation for both sides could not be reached. Although I would like to be able to continue the tradition the court selling the property for fair market value would be the best alternative since I could then purchase a different property that would allow me to kind of keep the tradition that I am personally attached to.

In doing what has become the best alternative where the court will sell the property since an agreement could not be made it will solve the whole issue and will have the final agreement since it will both...