4 ms·
I agree with you in principle, but I believe these agreements exist so that you can't take a $10m payout (and drop the legal case with a no-fault agreement), an
by JonFish85 11y ago
I agree with you in principle, but I believe these agreements exist so that you can't take a $10m payout (and drop the legal case with a no-fault agreement), and then turn around and tell the media that "I was paid $10m, but they TOTALLY were at fault". It'd come across as disingenuous all around (company & victim).
- bambax 11y agoHow would they agree to pay $10m and not be at fault?? ;-)
- JonFish85 11y agoTo make it go away. It happens all the time--generally when something is settled, it has a "no admission of guilt" statement attached somewhere. Both sides agree not to talk about it, and that ends that. It's useful in a case where it'd be difficult to prove conclusively one way or another, and it could hurt a company to have the publicity. It's probably cheaper for a company to pay $10m and make it go away than to fight a year-long legal battle, even if they eventually win, since there are bound to be stories linking them to something bad.
- kazinator 11y agoThis is red herring. If the agreement says you can't talk about the deal, you cannot say "I was paid $10m". Period. The "It was TOTALLY their fault" affix is irrelevant. Of course, people know you were paid $10m; it's not the sort of thing you can perfectly hide.