All conflict is this:
Did you make your Widget.
In every courtroom this is the case for the plaintiff, applicant, appellant, prosecution:
Where's the Widget you promised?
Where's the speed you said you'd drive at when we licensed you?
Where's the house you said you'd build in our contract?
Where's the work you said you'd do when we employed you?
Where's the safe workplace you said you'd provide for us?
The judges who rule on these questions can't build those Widgets. They have their opinions but that's Hell, not justice.
Judges assume that you're the best person to define your Widget specifications. In the contract you signed, the law that binds you, the policies that you wrote.
The judges decide like this:
'We've never built your Widget. But we can read the Widget blueprint in your policies, contract, agreement, legislation.'
'We've heard the evidence of what you delivered.'
'Is there a gap?'
'Did you drive at the speed you agreed to when you got your licence?' (Judges aren't experts in town planning, physics, or metallurgy.)
'Did you build the house with the brand of bathroom tiles your contract promised?' (Judges aren't experts in Interior Design or Italian slate.)
'Did you do what the company's code of conduct required of you?' (Judges don't assume that their values are yours.)
Judges trust that you're the best Widget definer.
If what you made isn't what you promised - then the Judges order: 'Make what you said you'd make', or alternatively 'Do what you agreed you'd do if you didn't.' (Pay a fine, go to prison, pay compensation.)
Do what you said you were going to do.
Make your Widget.
It's called 'Integrity.'
It's all about the Widget.