Proserpina
Senior Member
mind you, I am not talking about just the underlying debt. I am speaking to the entire amount the plaintiff would be awarded should it proceed to court.
If there is law on the matter it will be in the UCC or the state's version of the UCC. Other than that, it is a matter of common law.
Think of it this way;
If I owe you money, I attempt to hand you every single penny I owe you and you refuse, just how in any logical mind could you refuse and then demand I show up in court after that asking for exactly what I attempted to pay you? You don't think a judge is going to be a bit peeved that the lawyer continued on to court when there was absolutely no reason to do so?
The only reason to continue the suit would be to punish the defendant. The court is the only entity that has a right to punish a defendant and punitive damages would not be available in a simple debt situation. If a judge is worth his salt, he is going to educate the plaintiff's lawyer on how valuable the courts time is and their presence given the defendant's offer is nothing more than an attempt to punish the defendant. Hopefully he will go on and inform the lawyer only he gets to mete out punishment in the court system and given the lawyer doesn't understand what "ethical" means, lay some form of punishment on the lawyer.
You're spot on there though - it is sort of a back-door penalty. By the same token though, a savvy attorney (you'll notice the deliberate omission of "good" there) has probably dealt with this enough times in the same courtroom to know more or less what to expect. For them, it would seem they have much better odds when rolling the dice than the debtor.
I do hope OP will come back though.
Incidentally, I would always let you keep a penny so you can't say that you're broke
(Don't mind me. Maudlin wench that I am today)