2 ms·
The difference I see there (IANAL) is that they are asking for that 1M to recoup their legal fees as the winners of the case, and offering to waive them if the
by robbles 11y ago
The difference I see there (IANAL) is that they are asking for that 1M to recoup their legal fees as the winners of the case, and offering to waive them if the case is closed. Not sure if they're definitively entitled to that money, but at least it's the other way round.
Asking for millions of $ as the losing plaintiff to not continue the case and cause more expenses for the defendant seems like a pretty clear case of blackmail to me however. Is it still settlement when you've already lost?
- timr 11y agoIf you have a valid appeal, you haven't "already lost" -- you have a case that's working its way through the courts. The legal system isn't sportsball, and you aren't being a sore loser if you appeal your case to a higher court. If someone gives up their right to appeal, that obviously has a financial benefit for the other party. It's not underhanded to admit it, and use it as a negotiation tactic.
- brighteyes 11y agoI don't think there is a difference. Yes, she lost the current trial, but the legal system in the US is built on appeals being a near-inevitable part of the process. Settlements can happen during any part.
- supercanuck 11y agoWhat definition of blackmail are you using? What I see is two sides producing leverage in a negotiation. If they are willing to pay $1M for her to go away, why not $2.7M? This is Pao feeling out what Kleiner's BATNA is.