4 ms·

The first thing my lawyer (in the UK) tells me is to always respond to any correspondence that contains false claims etc. The response should be a short 'I cate

by 1gor 16y ago

The first thing my lawyer (in the UK) tells me is to always respond to any correspondence that contains false claims etc. The response should be a short 'I categorically disagree with everything you claim'. Not responding/objecting, I am told, will be interpreted as a kind of silent agreement by the judge, if the case ever lands in court.

pmjordan 16y ago
This is apparently particularly true for cease & desist type letters or demands for payment. Don't give them more information than they already have, however - e.g. postal address if the threat came by email.
cletus 16y ago
I guess I should elaborate. When someone starts threatening you with a lawsuit sometimes what they're doing is going on a fishing expedition. They're baiting you into either settling or making a damaging admission. For example, "I know I was meant to pay you but...". You've just stipulated that you owe the sender money. Woops. There is other kind of correspondence that you should respond to. Either direct them to your lawyer or forward the correspondence to your lawyer and have them draft a response, if it's reached that point. I guess what I'm getting at is this: avoid saying anything unnecessary. Don't volunteer any information you don't have to. Don't accept the premise of the question (eg when someone says "Are you going to pay me or stiff me?" and you answer "Stiff you" it can be argued you've accepted the premise of the question by admitting that you do owe them money). Also, many make the mistake of assuming that verbal contracts are worth the paper they're printed on. HUGE mistake. If you tell someone "I'll pay you $100 a day to do my gardening" hoping that if it comes to court it's your word against his, consider: if that person shows up and does your gardening and goes home and then does it the day after, any court will come to the conclusion that some agreement was in place as it isn't reasonable for someone to simply start doing that, particularly when you didn't correct them of any alleged misunderstanding. You'll get similar advice when giving depositions and evidence in court: answer the question but only the question asked. Don't volunteer anything else. It'll just get you into trouble. The same applies to any kind of correspondence.

by 1gor 16y ago

pmjordan 16y ago

This is apparently particularly true for cease & desist type letters or demands for payment. Don't give them more information than they already have, however - e.g. postal address if the threat came by email.

cletus 16y ago

I guess I should elaborate. When someone starts threatening you with a lawsuit sometimes what they're doing is going on a fishing expedition. They're baiting you into either settling or making a damaging admission. For example, "I know I was meant to pay you but...". You've just stipulated that you owe the sender money. Woops. There is other kind of correspondence that you should respond to. Either direct them to your lawyer or forward the correspondence to your lawyer and have them draft a response, if it's reached that point. I guess what I'm getting at is this: avoid saying anything unnecessary. Don't volunteer any information you don't have to. Don't accept the premise of the question (eg when someone says "Are you going to pay me or stiff me?" and you answer "Stiff you" it can be argued you've accepted the premise of the question by admitting that you do owe them money). Also, many make the mistake of assuming that verbal contracts are worth the paper they're printed on. HUGE mistake. If you tell someone "I'll pay you $100 a day to do my gardening" hoping that if it comes to court it's your word against his, consider: if that person shows up and does your gardening and goes home and then does it the day after, any court will come to the conclusion that some agreement was in place as it isn't reasonable for someone to simply start doing that, particularly when you didn't correct them of any alleged misunderstanding. You'll get similar advice when giving depositions and evidence in court: answer the question but only the question asked. Don't volunteer anything else. It'll just get you into trouble. The same applies to any kind of correspondence.