Let`s say, for example, that Dave wants to sell his mountain bike and equipment for $700 to buy new skis and ski equipment. Suzy wants to buy the bike and equipment for 400 dollars and can`t go higher. Dave and Suzy did not reach ZOPA; they are in a negative bargaining area. When both parties know their BATNAs and leave their positions, the parties should be able to communicate, evaluate the proposed agreements and, finally, identify the ZOPA. However, parties often do not know their own BATNA and even less know the BATNA on the other side. Often, the parties can pretend to have a better alternative than they really do, because the right alternatives usually lead to more power in negotiations. This is explained in more detail in the BATN trial. However, the result of such deception could be the obvious absence of ZOPA – and therefore a failure of negotiation when there was actually a ZOPA. Common uncertainties may also affect the parties` ability to assess potential agreements, as the parties may be unrealistic or pessimistic about the possibility of reaching an agreement or the value of other options.  The nature of ZOPA depends on the nature of the negotiations.  In a (competitive) negotiation where participants try to share a “solid cake,” it is more difficult to find solutions acceptable to both parties because both parties want to claim the cake as much as possible. Distribution negotiations on a single topic tend to be zero sums — there is a winner and a loser.
There is no overlap between the parties; Therefore, no mutually beneficial agreement is possible. The best thing to do – sometimes – is to split the desired result in half. Take, for example, the sale of a used car. The buyer hopes to buy a vehicle at a price between 2,500 and 3,000 $US. The seller is willing to sell for between 2,750 and 3,250 $US. In this scenario, there is a positive trading area between $2,750 and $3,000, in which the buyer and the seller`s terms and conditions can be met. It is a great advantage to know the upper and lower limits of a ZOPA. It is understandable that a negotiator is reluctant to take a step forward, or ultimately, because it is the least attractive activity they would accept before moving away from the negotiations. If you know the limits of a ZOPA, it is possible to bring your opponent closer to his limits to get an advantageous deal.
Here is a process developed by Harvard Law School to develop the best alternative to a negotiated agreement: have you ever wondered what it takes to prepare effectively for the success of the negotiations? Understanding the Area of Agreement of Possibles (ZOPA) is essential for the result to be successful. Where there is a ZOPA, an agreement is usually reached. There is therefore a possible area of agreement if there is an overlap between these outgoing positions. If not, it is very unlikely that the negotiations will succeed. In fact, this will only succeed if one party realizes that its BATNA is not as good as it thought, or that it decides to accept the agreement for another reason, although another option may lead to better results. (This is often the case when the parties do not explore or understand their BATNA well enough and therefore commit to less than they could have obtained elsewhere.) Not all potential stores will have areas that have a potential deal. However, negative negotiating areas can be overcome if the negotiating parties are willing to learn about each other`s wishes and needs. Suppose Dave explains to Suzy that he wants to use the proceeds from the sale of the bike to buy new skis and ski equipment.