>If there was no wrongdoing, why would they promise not to misrepresent prospects going forward? Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 407 (subsequent remedial measur

>If there was no wrongdoing, why would they promise not to misrepresent prospects going forward? Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 407 (subsequent remedial measures) may be applicable here. For example, say you were at MartWal and slip and fall, then sue. They Answer the lawsuit denying liability, but they immediately replace the floor with a new non-slip material. Rules of evidence does not allow you to introduce the subsequent remedial measure as evidence of liability on the under lying claim. Why? Mostly it is entirely possible in my hypothetical MartWal was not negligent, but we wouldn't want a chilling effect on improvements during the case, just so the improvement isn't used as evidence of liability. But more importantly to your point, its a settlement. You can basically include any provision you want, even if inconsistent, for example, I maintain no wrong doing but agree to issue a formal written apology. Why apologize if you maintain you did nothing wrong? Because its cheaper for everyone, and usually a better outcome for everyone (one side denies wrong doing the other still gets an apology), at least usually better than dragging it out and gambling the outcome on principle of a finding liability.