Both parties' minimum and maximum prices should ideally equal their BATNA values and the greater (or lower as appropriate) their BATNA values are the more powerful their respective positions and ability to walk away from a disadvantageous deal. If Le > Lo then agreement is possible but if Lo>Le then agreement may be impossible. In such a situation one has to try changing the rules of the game or the pay-offs by changing what exactly is being negotiated over.

Choosing an initial offer may be difficult but the temptation to make an outrageous initial offer should be resisted and the maximum rationally sustainable bid made. This should leave some room for concessions to be made as the negotiation proceeds. There may be advantages in opening the bidding by setting an initial anchor position for the negotiation - if the other side is unprepared and if the initial offer is still a rationally sustainable bid.

There should be a principled attitude to negotiation and a creative approach to trying to reconcile differences. Strategies in terms of psychological ploys and tactics aimed at tricking the other side into an unfavourable position are numerous as are the rather dubious sounding names they go by or actions they involve: straw men, red herrings, bad guy/good guy ploys, salami /sashimi deals, last minute demands, bullying, threats, personal attacks, lies, deception, take it or leave it demands, and escalating or extreme initial demands.

All of these may be not only wrong and in some cases illegal but all are also counterproductive if they lead to an agreement which subsequently breaks down. The cost of breakdown will be far greater to the parties than any marginal negotiating gain. In any event all such unprincipled tactics can to a great extent be countered by sticking to the maxim of honest and principled negotiation.