A dispute emerged between a government body and a private education technology provider over the interpretation of a Call-Off Contract for a national pool of teachers. The government believed its termination notice ended the agreement with no further financial obligations, while the supplier insisted that six months’ notice had to be given before the next renewal date, entitling it to a full year’s fees. What began as a disagreement over contract terms quickly grew into a conflict that threatened litigation, unpaid fees, reputational harm, and a breakdown in cooperation.

To resolve this impasse, the parties agreed to mediation. Conducted online over a single day, both sides were represented by legal and commercial teams. Wolf von Kumberg, the mediator, guided the process with a facilitative and evaluative style. A joint session clarified the issues, followed by private caucuses where shuttle diplomacy allowed him to test proposals, reframe positions, and redirect the focus from legal arguments to business solutions.

Key tools played a decisive role. Issue mapping broke the dispute into manageable topics — from termination terms and payment to reputation and future relationships — revealing areas of overlap. Through option development, the parties explored creative settlement packages with different payment structures and contract scenarios. Reframing helped shift the narrative away from “who was right on the contract” toward “how to preserve value and manage risk going forward.” Positioning any payment as an act of goodwill, rather than an admission of liability, also made it possible for both sides to save face.

By the end of the day, the dispute transformed into a constructive agreement. The parties decided to terminate the existing contract from the date of the government’s notice, with a lump-sum payment equivalent to several months of licence fees. At the same time, they signed a new agreement covering a smaller number of authorities, with flexibility to expand later. A clear exit plan and data governance measures ensured compliance with GDPR and a smooth transition. Importantly, they issued a joint public statement framing the outcome as a policy shift, not a platform failure, protecting reputations on both sides.

The result was a win-win: the supplier secured guaranteed payment and preserved a valuable relationship, while the government capped its financial exposure, avoided litigation risk, and ensured continuity of service. This case demonstrates how structured negotiation, option-building, and skilled mediation can turn a contentious contractual dispute into a pragmatic, forward-looking settlement.

‍