RE: Making a giant leap wihtout supporting facts.

[jdmba]

RE: Making a giant leap wihtout supporting facts.

What is the name of your state? PA

BelizeBreeze
In another thread it was suggested that FRE 408 could be used as the basis of one party offering a check and the statement "Now we're even" to prove liability on the part of one party in a dispute if the check was, in fact, accepted.

LOL! Great stuff. Again, you completely misunderstand things...

No, I did not suggest that FRE 408 could be used as the basis for admitting that evidence. Instead, I gave you too much credit by assuming that you were arguing that the evidence should be excluded because of FRE 408. I then pointed out that the evidence would not be excluded under Rule 408.

The basis for admitting the evidence is rule 402.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What is the name of your state? PA



LOL! Great stuff. Again, you completely misunderstand things...

No, I did not suggest that FRE 408 could be used as the basis for admitting that evidence. Instead, I gave you too much credit by assuming that you were arguing that the evidence should be excluded because of FRE 408. I then pointed out that the evidence would not be excluded under Rule 408.

The basis for admitting the evidence is rule 402.

Listen jackass YOU said the check and subsequent statments COULD be entered into evidence. Now explain how you can make that statement in lieu of FRE 408. Or should I also post here YOUR EXACT words?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

That "demented theory" comes from discussions about FRE 408 (which PA seems to follow). If there is no claim, or no dispute about the claim or the amount due, or if the statement of fault occurs outside the context of compromise negotiations, the furnishing of valuable consideration will be admissible to prove liability.
...
It doesn't sound like the check was given during compromise negotiations, or in response to any claim made by the OP. According to his original post, he was still in the process of searching for his dog when the vet came out, handed him a check, and claimed "we're even" (which also may be used against her in court, by the way).

sound familiar?

 

[Shay-Pari'e]

BB, do you have fan gifts for the guy? You know, like a free hat or something?

 

[jdmba]

Listen jackass YOU said the check and subsequent statments COULD be entered into evidence. Now explain how you can make that statement in lieu of FRE 408. Or should I also post here YOUR EXACT words?

Yes, it can be admitted, but not because of 408. It can be admitted despite 408. The reason is that the check was not given pursuant to negotiations.

The statement that you quoted in your "sound familiar" post is straight out of my old evidence book in a discussion of rule 408...Evidence, Text, Cases & Problems, Second Edition, by Allen, Kuhns and Swift, published by Aspen Law & Business. The case I cited is also cited in that book as one source for that conclusion.

If you don't like it, perhaps you should take it up with the authors, who are experts in evidence? In the meantime, maybe we can just conclude that you're clueless.

 

[tranquility]

I am perturbed I had to read that dog thread to get some understanding of the facts.

Plaintiff:
I'd like to introduce this check.

Defendant:
Objection, relevance.

Plaintiff:
The check is relevant for proving the defendant admitted liability for losing the dog.

Defendant:
The check is nothing more than a refund for the amount of services.

Judge:
Sustained

Plaintiff:
Can I approach?

Everyone goes up.
Plaintiff:
The check is relevant for proving that the person was there at the time to use the vet's services.

Defendant:
Your honor, the defense stipulates the plaintiff was at the office on the date in question in order to receive professional services for her dog.

Judge:
Objection sustained.

Plaintiff:
The check is relevant for proving (whatever possible that is relevant).

Defendant:
I request an instruction to the jury that the check is admitted solely for the purpose of establishing (whatever).

Judge:
Jury, the check is being admitted for the purposes of whatever. You are to make no inferences in any way beyond that limited purpose.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Sorry Tran, but when someone uses a Second Edition book published in 1999 when a 4th edition published in 2006 exists and has been updated and the relevant FRE was also amended in 2006, I have a problem with the 'science'.

 

[tranquility]

I don't disagree. My only point was that most things can be entered if you argue it in the right way. For example, if the person saw the vet sign the check in front of him and needed to prove up the vet's signature for some reason the check could be entered into evidence as an example of the vet's signature. That does not mean it can be used to prove admittance of fault, it just means it can get in for some reason.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I don't disagree. My only point was that most things can be entered if you argue it in the right way. For example, if the person saw the vet sign the check in front of him and needed to prove up the vet's signature for some reason the check could be entered into evidence as an example of the vet's signature. That does not mean it can be used to prove admittance of fault, it just means it can get in for some reason.

Absolutely. And I agree. THe check can also be submitted for impeachment purposes. But according to the FRE NOT for the purposes stated by JBM.

Of course, I always wonder about someone citing trademark law in relation to a civil small claims case.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Out of curiosity, just how many small claims arbitrators ia PA are well versed in the FRCP (as opposed to the PA evidence code)?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Out of curiosity, just how many small claims arbitrators ia PA are well versed in the FRCP (as opposed to the PA evidence code)?

I know one in Philly....and that's about it

 

[jdmba]

Sorry Tran, but when someone uses a Second Edition book published in 1999 when a 4th edition published in 2006 exists and has been updated and the relevant FRE was also amended in 2006, I have a problem with the 'science'.

LOL@4th edition.

Again, you miss the point. Rule 408 is not applicable. Or do you want to argue that the rule was amended to preclude the admission of any payments at all, even if not made pursuant to negotiations of settlements?

Nonsense...just nonsense. I've created a monster by mentioning rule 408. I'm sure up until I mentioned it, you had never heard of it. Christ...you thought that the "subsequent remedial measures rule" was the key to keeping the check out. LOL

What a joke.

Truthfully, it's unfortunate that forums like these become overrun with lawyer wannabes who enjoy flexing their ignorant brains by pretending to offer expert legal advice. Most of the people asking questions in here probably have no idea that they are being "counseled" by clueless laymen, and some may actually take the poor advice.

BTW, I'm still laughing at "liable," "the plaintiff will have to pay the defendant's atty fees," "pleadings must prove the prima facie case," and even the fact that you would have a 2006 evidence book. Go back to school and let real attorneys answer questions.

 

[jdmba]

Out of curiosity, just how many small claims arbitrators ia PA are well versed in the FRCP (as opposed to the PA evidence code)?

The PA evidence code pretty much mirrors the FRE...at least with regard to rule 408.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

No, I think you should reread both rule 407 (not relevant) and rule 408 (relevant), and you will see that in all likelihood, the OP can use the check as evidence against the vet, as well as the statement "we're even."

Again, you miss the point. Rule 408 is not applicable. .

I then pointed out that the evidence would not be excluded under Rule 408.
.

All of your quotes from the previous post and this one. So which is it? Are you saying, as in the previous post, that 408 IS applicable or not as in this post?

The more you post the more you show you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[jdmba]

All of your quotes from the previous post and this one. So which is it? Are you saying, as in the previous post, that 408 IS applicable or not as in this post?

The more you post the more you show you have no idea what you're talking about.

Rule 408 was relevant to our prior discussion because I incorrectly thought that's where you were going when you wrote that it was a "demented theory of law" to think that the check would be admitted against the vet. It's true that an attorney for the defendant probably would object to the admittance of the check (citing rule 408), even if it would likely lose.

Clearly I was wrong about why you wrote that it was a "demented theory of law," however, as you have a rudimentary understanding (at best) of the rules of evidence and had no idea about when such rule was to be used. Claiming that the completely irrelevant rule about subsequent remedial measures is more on point is proof of that.

Regardless, rule 408 is inapplicable for the reasons I already stated.

In sum, rule 408 was relevant to our discussion, but inapplicable to the dog/vet case (at least under the facts that the OP presented).