4 ms·
The burden of proof has nothing to do with the admission (or not admission) of wrongdoing. A settlement is a way to end a dispute by agreeing to a solution, in
by jaclaz 3y ago
The burden of proof has nothing to do with the admission (or not admission) of wrongdoing.
A settlement is a way to end a dispute by agreeing to a solution, in other countries it is "normal" that a party admits (partial) responsibility and pays to the other party a (monetary) compensation and the other party accepts the compensation and promises to refrain from further actions in court.
In such cases the admission is the actual reason why the compensation can be given to the other party.
The way these class action settlements are closed seems like one party did nothing wrong still it gives money to the other party (why? because they are generous?).
- lockhouse 3y agoThey are not paying out because they are generous, but I have seen companies pay out even when the case against them is flimsy simply because it’s the smartest business decision for them. These settlements are usually significantly less costly than if a civil case actually went to trial. Civil courts tend not to be very friendly to those with deep pockets. The burden of proof is very low, and the prevailing attitude is that they can afford it, so why not award compensation to the plaintiff.