3 ms·
You neglect that civil trials often result in relevant case law, which benefits society when similar actionable events occur. This is a clear benefit to society
by justinjlynn 4y ago
You neglect that civil trials often result in relevant case law, which benefits society when similar actionable events occur. This is a clear benefit to society which settling cases destroys. Legislation is the start of the law, judicial interpretation is the implementation and will of it. This too applies to civil cases to which the state is a party - if you want to avoid any possibility of creating case law, binding arbitration is what you desire. If you want the power and will of the people to solve and enforce the solution to your civil problem, you owe the people something also.
- gretch 4y ago> If you want the power and will of the people to solve and enforce the solution to your civil problem, you owe the people something also. They don't. Hence 'settled out of court'
- justinjlynn 4y agoSettled out of court does not mean not involving the court or using those resources - of course the use of the court and those resources is a strong means of coercing parties and, as such, yes they very much have used the courts' resources to secure a settlement instead of a judgement. Be it settlement or judgement, they will again use those resources if the party who settled or was judged violates that contract and or judgement. It's not nearly as simple as you suggest.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]