How to use this calculator
- Enter party locations, governing law, and performance location.
- Choose practical priorities: confidentiality, urgency, cost, and discovery.
- Add enforcement targets and any arbitration clause details.
- Submit to view the recommended forum and clause snippet.
- Download the result as CSV or PDF for your file.
Formula used
The calculator assigns three option scores (Courts, Arbitration, Hybrid) on a 0–100 scale. Each input adjusts scores using weighted rules, then the highest score becomes the recommendation.
Confidence = TopScore − SecondScore
- Cross-border enforcement: +18 Arbitration, +10 Hybrid
- High confidentiality: +16 Arbitration, +8 Hybrid
- Interim relief: +16 Hybrid, +8 Courts
- Appeal needed: +14 Courts, −8 Arbitration
- High cost sensitivity: +8 Courts, −6 Arbitration
Calculator inputs
Example data table
These are illustrative scenarios. Your results may differ.
| Scenario | Facts | Likely recommendation | Drafting note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-border supply | Assets in multiple countries, medium confidentiality, high amount. | Arbitration | Pick a neutral seat and enforceable award language. |
| SaaS terms | Online assent, recurring disputes, urgent suspension rights. | Hybrid | Arbitration plus court injunctive relief carve-out. |
| Small invoice dispute | Local parties, low amount, high cost sensitivity. | Courts | Use local venue and simplified procedure provisions. |
| Strategic JV | Long-term relationship, high confidentiality, technical issues. | Arbitration | Allow expert arbitrators and tight disclosure rules. |
| Employment contractor | Worker-like relationship, appeal and statutory protections matter. | Courts | Check mandatory laws and forum enforceability limits. |
Forum selection objectives in contract drafting
This calculator supports contracts teams in selecting a dispute forum that fits business risk. It compares court litigation, arbitration, and a hybrid approach using structured inputs. The output shows a primary recommendation, a confidence gap, and drafting details such as venue, seat, rules, and language. A clause snippet is generated to speed review, while notes highlight common enforceability concerns. For internal approvals, playbooks, and templates.
Inputs that drive the scoring model
Location data (party countries, optional states, and performance place) informs cross-border friction and venue practicality. Commercial preferences then shape control: confidentiality, urgency, discovery tolerance, and cost sensitivity. The tool also captures appeal expectations, interim relief needs, online assent, relationship type, and whether the contract already contains an arbitration clause. Where you leave seat blank, the calculator proposes a neutral seat for drafting.
How the score is calculated
Each option starts at a base score of 50. Weighted signals add or subtract points based on typical drafting tradeoffs. For example, cross‑border enforcement increases Arbitration by 18 and Hybrid by 10, while appeal needs increase Courts by 14 and reduce Arbitration by 8. Interim relief increases Hybrid by 16. Scores are clamped to 0–100, then ranked. If the gap between the top two scores is under 8, the tool favors Hybrid to reduce edge‑case risk.
Interpreting results and clause guidance
Use Courts when local procedure, disclosure tools, and appeal rights matter most. Use Arbitration when confidentiality, specialist decision‑makers, and multi‑country enforcement dominate. Use Hybrid when you want arbitration as the default but need quick court injunctions. The clause snippet is a starting point: adjust exclusivity, service mechanics, institution rules, and emergency relief language to match the transaction and governing law.
Practical compliance checks before adoption
Before finalizing, confirm mandatory consumer or employment rules, statutory venue limits, and public policy restrictions. Validate that arbitration consent is clear for online terms and that the chosen seat supports the relief you may need. Check language and translation requirements, evidence retention, and where assets sit for enforcement planning. Save CSV and PDF outputs in the deal folder to document the rationale for later audits.
What does the confidence gap indicate?
It is the score difference between the top two options. Larger gaps suggest a clearer fit. Small gaps mean competing priorities are close, so a hybrid clause can reduce uncertainty.
When should a neutral arbitration seat be used?
Use a neutral seat when parties or assets span countries. A well‑supported seat improves procedural certainty, court assistance, and award enforcement. If you already agreed a seat, keep it consistent across templates.
Does this calculator replace professional advice?
No. It is a drafting aid for comparing common tradeoffs. Always confirm enforceability, mandatory venue rules, consumer or employment protections, and local procedure with qualified counsel for the governing law and seat.
Can I combine arbitration with court relief?
Yes. The hybrid output keeps arbitration as the main path while allowing urgent court injunctions. This is useful for IP, confidentiality, and termination disputes where speed matters and tribunal formation may take time.
How do confidentiality and discovery affect results?
High confidentiality and low discovery tolerance increase arbitration and hybrid scores. If you expect extensive document production or third‑party discovery, courts may score higher because procedural tools and appeal routes are broader.
What is included in the CSV and PDF exports?
Exports include the recommendation, confidence gap, option scores, suggested venue or seat details, key reasons, notes, and the clause snippet. Save the files with the contract version to document why a forum was selected.