BelizeBreeze
Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Pennsylvania (but federal statements)
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.
The thread itself is getting ridiculous therefore I wanted those of you with half a brain to realize what EXACTLY FRE 408 states in relation to the topic. This thread will be closed immediately so that it does not descent into a snipe hunt.
The exact statement was:
"Maybe he's not questioning whether the check would be admissible because of Rule 408. Instead, maybe he's clueless as to the logical inferences that can be made, and of the check's relevancy." Given your vast misunderstandings of the law in past threads (as well as in this one), I now suspect that is the case.
Here's something that should clear things up for you (I dug this up out of an evidence casebook): "One plausible inference to draw from offers of compromise is that those making the offer...believe they were at fault in the incident giving rise to a claim against them. If they have this belief, one can then make the further inference that they were in fact at fault. In short, one way in which compromising or offering to compromise a claim is relevant is as a tacit admission of fault or liability."
And FRE 408 is very clear on the subject:
Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise
(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:
(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim ; and
(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice ; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
You decide.
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.
The thread itself is getting ridiculous therefore I wanted those of you with half a brain to realize what EXACTLY FRE 408 states in relation to the topic. This thread will be closed immediately so that it does not descent into a snipe hunt.
The exact statement was:
"Maybe he's not questioning whether the check would be admissible because of Rule 408. Instead, maybe he's clueless as to the logical inferences that can be made, and of the check's relevancy." Given your vast misunderstandings of the law in past threads (as well as in this one), I now suspect that is the case.
Here's something that should clear things up for you (I dug this up out of an evidence casebook): "One plausible inference to draw from offers of compromise is that those making the offer...believe they were at fault in the incident giving rise to a claim against them. If they have this belief, one can then make the further inference that they were in fact at fault. In short, one way in which compromising or offering to compromise a claim is relevant is as a tacit admission of fault or liability."
And FRE 408 is very clear on the subject:
Rule 408. Compromise and Offers to Compromise
(a) Prohibited uses.—Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction:
(1) furnishing or offering or promising to furnish or accepting or offering or promising to accept a valuable consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim ; and
(2) conduct or statements made in compromise negotiations regarding the claim, except when offered in a criminal case and the negotiations related to a claim by a public office or agency in the exercise of regulatory, investigative, or enforcement authority.
Permitted uses. This rule does not require exclusion if the evidence is offered for purposes not prohibited by subdivision (a). Examples of permissible purposes include proving a witness's bias or prejudice ; negating a contention of undue delay; and proving an effort to obstruct a criminal investigation or prosecution.
You decide.