This is the second in a series of three articles addressing how to prevent and resolve software implementation disputes. In our first article, using a hypothetical case study, we considered techniques for avoiding and resolving disputes without litigation. A medical center (GoodHealth) discovered during acceptance testing that the software (ChartX) performed too slowly and produced inaccurate data. GoodHealth requested information from the developer (MedData) concerning internal performance testing but none was forthcoming, leading GoodHealth to believe that the software had not been adequately tested before release and that representations in MedData’s sales brochures regarding ChartX’s capabilities were false. MedData disputed the assertion but offered no meaningful support for its position.