The arbitration process in commercial cases is discussed, including past and present judicial treatment of arbitration and the asserted benefits of arbitration. The relative costs and benefits of arbitration and litigation are compared, with particular consideration of practical and jurisprudential issues. Theoretical points are illustrated in a case study of a major commercial dispute between IBM and Fujitsu. This case demonstrates that while arbitration offers many practical efficiencies, it also presents jurisprudential inefficiencies: i.e., the rapid repose promised by arbitration often is achieved at the expense of the vindication of public rights. Dispute resolution under the NJADR then is compared with conventional methods of commercial arbitration and litigation. It is argued that the NJADR provides a precise system of checks and balances, including streamlined procedures necessary for efficient repose and substantive safeguards needed to protect public rights. The heart of the act is a provision requiring the system's decisionmakers to resolve disputes according to substantive law, a requirement following from New Jersey case law holding arbitrators to an identical standard of accurate decisionmaking as judges. The NJADR is a careful blend of existing dispute settlement modes that confers greater predictability on decisionmaking and facilitates review of those decisions by the courts. 216 footnotes.