Plaintiff ignores response to demand letter

[Bamboo]

Hi everyone,

An unusual case here. I received a demand letter insisting I do not break a specific rule in a contract (‘setting a meeting with the plaintiff’). The entire case is baseless since this rule has never been broken.

Regardless, I responded politely to the lawyer of the plaintiff. I offered the plaintiff exactly what they wished for (‘a meeting’, to be specific).

This meeting had to take place before a date X specified by the plaintiff and their lawyer. My offer was received by the plaintiff 4 weeks before the deadline (date X). In my offer, I suggested 8 different days for meeting with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff made absolutely no attempts to contact me back (directly or indirectly via their lawyer) until after date X (the date before which they insisted on a meeting)!

Do I take this case seriously? Is it not ridiculous that, as the accused, I offer the settlement they wish for - yet they themselves do not even contact me back before the date set by themselves?! How will this be considered if it goes to court?

Thank you for your help,

Arthur

 

[Just Blue]

Hi everyone,

An unusual case here. I received a demand letter insisting I do not break a specific rule in a contract (‘setting a meeting with the plaintiff’). The entire case is baseless since this rule has never been broken.

Regardless, I responded politely to the lawyer of the plaintiff. I offered the plaintiff exactly what they wished for (‘a meeting’, to be specific).

This meeting had to take place before a date X specified by the plaintiff and their lawyer. My offer was received by the plaintiff 4 weeks before the deadline (date X). In my offer, I suggested 8 different days for meeting with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff made absolutely no attempts to contact me back (directly or indirectly via their lawyer) until after date X (the date before which they insisted on a meeting)!

Do I take this case seriously? Is it not ridiculous that, as the accused, I offer the settlement they wish for - yet they themselves do not even contact me back before the date set by themselves?! How will this be considered if it goes to court?

Thank you for your help,

Arthur

U.S. Law Only. Please provide the name of your state.

 

[Bamboo]

Moderator please delete post

 

[Just Blue]

Moderator please delete post

Why? Do you not live in the US? Or are you just unwilling to provide the state?

 

[quincy]

Moderator please delete post

You should be able to delete your own thread. Go to your first post and click on "administrative tools" in the post's banner. There is a "delete thread" option. If that doesn't work, post back and the moderator can be contacted.

If you are in the US and want us to assist you, however, please provide your state name. The laws vary from state to state. You will also need to explain a bit more about the contract "rule" that was said to be violated. If terms of a contract are breached, a lawsuit potentially can result.

 

[latigo]

Hi everyone,

An unusual case here. I received a demand letter insisting I do not break a specific rule in a contract (‘setting a meeting with the plaintiff’). The entire case is baseless since this rule has never been broken.

Regardless, I responded politely to the lawyer of the plaintiff. I offered the plaintiff exactly what they wished for (‘a meeting’, to be specific).

This meeting had to take place before a date X specified by the plaintiff and their lawyer. My offer was received by the plaintiff 4 weeks before the deadline (date X). In my offer, I suggested 8 different days for meeting with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff made absolutely no attempts to contact me back (directly or indirectly via their lawyer) until after date X (the date before which they insisted on a meeting)!

Do I take this case seriously? Is it not ridiculous that, as the accused, I offer the settlement they wish for - yet they themselves do not even contact me back before the date set by themselves?! How will this be considered if it goes to court?

Thank you for your help,

Arthur

If I understand correctly, your question is as follows:

Would the failure/refusal of the plaintiff to continue to pursue its overtures in seeking a settlement of its claims (as you have described) have an adverse affect with respect to prosecuting its claim in a court of law, and/or be of benefit to you in defending the claim in a court of law?

And the answer is negative as to both!

In fact none of the detail you have mentioned would be admissible in a court of law. The principle reason - other than it not being germane to the substantive issues - is due to the universal policy of the courts to avoid discouraging out of court settlements.

An example of this policy is reflected in the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations

"(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising OR ATTEMPTING TO COMPROMISE THE CLAIM; * * * * " (Emphasis added)

 

[CTU]

If I understand correctly, your question is as follows:

Would the failure/refusal of the plaintiff to continue to pursue its overtures in seeking a settlement of its claims (as you have described) have an adverse affect with respect to prosecuting its claim in a court of law, and/or be of benefit to you in defending the claim in a court of law?

And the answer is negative as to both!

In fact none of the detail you have mentioned would be admissible in a court of law. The principle reason - other than it not being germane to the substantive issues - is due to the universal policy of the courts to avoid discouraging out of court settlements.

An example of this policy is reflected in the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 408. Compromise Offers and Negotiations

"(a) Prohibited Uses. Evidence of the following is not admissible — on behalf of any party — either to prove or disprove the validity or amount of a disputed claim or to impeach by a prior inconsistent statement or a contradiction:

(1) furnishing, promising, or offering — or accepting, promising to accept, or offering to accept — a valuable consideration in compromising OR ATTEMPTING TO COMPROMISE THE CLAIM; * * * * " (Emphasis added)

And if the poster is not in the US ... ?

Really, latigo.

 

[latigo]

And if the poster is not in the US ... ?

Really, latigo.

Really?

What are you? The "state" police?

 

[LdiJ]

Really?

What are you? The "state" police?

Are you really that dense? If the poster is not in the US then your advice is completely irrelevant. If the poster is in the US and we don't know what state, your advice could still be irrelevant. You KNOW that.

 

[CTU]

Really?

What are you? The "state" police?

Have you been watching Faux News again?