Mediation – Words Matter

I recently mediated a landlord-tenant dispute that had been pending for over four years and was scheduled to go to trial the following day. We engaged in full-day mediation, and while the parties explored various substantive pathways to resolution, the final hurdle to settlement came down not to economics or logistics—but to language.

The tenant proposed multiple workable approaches. One option was to assign its lease to a third party controlled by the landlord. Another was to stipulate to possession and forfeiture of the lease. Either path would have effectively returned control of the premises to the landlord, achieving the landlord’s primary objective.

Yet, both proposals were rejected.

The sticking point was not the structure of the deal—it was the language used to describe it. For the landlord, it was essential that any agreement include the tenant’s express acknowledgment that the lease was “terminated.” No euphemisms. No alternative phrasing. That word— “terminated”—carried symbolic and strategic value that the landlord was unwilling to compromise on, even at the expense of more favorable terms.

It became clear that the settlement was no longer about business terms, but about narrative and meaning. The resolution hinged on framing, not function. And that got me thinking: in dispute resolution, it is often not what is being offered that derails settlement—but how it is being said.

My high school English teacher was right all along: words matter. In law, in negotiation, and in mediation, the power of language can be the difference between impasse and resolution.