Who is right and who is wrong?
October 31, 2006 12:29 PM Subscribe
Be a jury! I'm wondering who you believe in the following scenario. This is not a question about law, it is a question about facts -- anybody can play!
So two grown women (Alice and Betty) decide to invest in some real estate together. While still in escrow, they have a big fight and don't want to do the deal anymore. Alice decides to buy out Betty's interest in the condo. Betty's interest is worth $40k but Alice and Betty were recently in a car accident together (Betty was driving and Alice was injured). Betty wanted to settle ALL claims and make a clean break so she sold her condo interest for a reduced rate of $25k AND a signed full release of claims from Alice.
While the two women were negotiating the settlement, Alice surreptitiously changed the agreement to say "only claims related to the condo" and then signed it without saying anything to Betty about the change. Betty caught Alice's secret edit and refused to sign unless the language was changed back to "all claims." The women ultimately signed a release of all claims (but the agreement did not SPECIFICALLY mention the car accident) and Alice paid Betty the $25k. Betty kept both versions of the agreement as evidence of what Alice did.
Six months later, Alice sued Betty for her personal injury claim for the accident. She will say that she had no idea she was waiving all claims when she signed the settlement agreement even though she acknowledges making the surreptitious change and acknowledges that the agreement states Alice consulted with independent attorneys before signing. Alice will say that Betty took a reduced amount only because it was Betty's fault that the deal did not move forward and not because the $15k difference was compensation for Alice's other claims.
Do you think Alice is telling the truth? Or do you think Alice let Betty believe that all claims were settled just to get a reduced amount on the condo settlement and planned all along to sue for the car accident later?
Does your opinion change if you know that Alice is a married woman, who is having an affair with a married man?
So two grown women (Alice and Betty) decide to invest in some real estate together. While still in escrow, they have a big fight and don't want to do the deal anymore. Alice decides to buy out Betty's interest in the condo. Betty's interest is worth $40k but Alice and Betty were recently in a car accident together (Betty was driving and Alice was injured). Betty wanted to settle ALL claims and make a clean break so she sold her condo interest for a reduced rate of $25k AND a signed full release of claims from Alice.
While the two women were negotiating the settlement, Alice surreptitiously changed the agreement to say "only claims related to the condo" and then signed it without saying anything to Betty about the change. Betty caught Alice's secret edit and refused to sign unless the language was changed back to "all claims." The women ultimately signed a release of all claims (but the agreement did not SPECIFICALLY mention the car accident) and Alice paid Betty the $25k. Betty kept both versions of the agreement as evidence of what Alice did.
Six months later, Alice sued Betty for her personal injury claim for the accident. She will say that she had no idea she was waiving all claims when she signed the settlement agreement even though she acknowledges making the surreptitious change and acknowledges that the agreement states Alice consulted with independent attorneys before signing. Alice will say that Betty took a reduced amount only because it was Betty's fault that the deal did not move forward and not because the $15k difference was compensation for Alice's other claims.
Do you think Alice is telling the truth? Or do you think Alice let Betty believe that all claims were settled just to get a reduced amount on the condo settlement and planned all along to sue for the car accident later?
Does your opinion change if you know that Alice is a married woman, who is having an affair with a married man?
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is not polltheaudiencefilter this is ask metafilter. what are you trying to do here?
She will say that she had no idea she was waiving all claims when she signed the settlement
Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse now? What?
Even if we take that statement as true (which I'd be inclined not to since she did try to slip that edit in), she's still in the wrong.
Alice being married/having an affair has nothing to do with this.
posted by juv3nal at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2006
Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse now? What?
Even if we take that statement as true (which I'd be inclined not to since she did try to slip that edit in), she's still in the wrong.
Alice being married/having an affair has nothing to do with this.
posted by juv3nal at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2006
i don't believe alice either. the fact that alice is having an affair is not material to the hypothetical, unless, of course, alice's affiar is with betty's husband. even then, it's not really material, but it does make for a juicier hypo.
i'm also not sure that alice is particularly credible as her own witness, but then, IANAL, GIRLesq . . . you are!
posted by deejay jaydee at 12:52 PM on October 31, 2006
i'm also not sure that alice is particularly credible as her own witness, but then, IANAL, GIRLesq . . . you are!
posted by deejay jaydee at 12:52 PM on October 31, 2006
So, if I understand correctly, there's no right answer, and anyone's answer is as good as anyone else's?
posted by box at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by box at 12:55 PM on October 31, 2006
No, if you read carefully you will see that we're supposed to believe Betty and disbelieve/dislike Alice.
The question is what that contract Alice signed says. That's a legal question not for us to judge.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:59 PM on October 31, 2006
The question is what that contract Alice signed says. That's a legal question not for us to judge.
posted by LobsterMitten at 12:59 PM on October 31, 2006
I'd want to see the context of the agreement - does it make sense to read it as meaning that "all claims" might include the auto accident? One could also have a reasonable expectation that the auto accident claim was actually a claim against insurance ~ or "all claims" could have been interpreted as all claims then fixed in amount.
Alice doesn't look so good here - changing the language relating to the scope of the waiver looks like a tacit acknowledgement that the auto accident was covered by the broader language.
posted by KAS at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2006
Alice doesn't look so good here - changing the language relating to the scope of the waiver looks like a tacit acknowledgement that the auto accident was covered by the broader language.
posted by KAS at 1:01 PM on October 31, 2006
GIRLesq, how are you getting in the evidence of the changed contract? Isn't that evidence of settlement negotiations?
posted by KAS at 1:03 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by KAS at 1:03 PM on October 31, 2006
Betty.
(What makes a bad question on Ask MetaFilter?
- Open-ended chatty questions that don't offer a problem to be solved.
- Hypothetical or jokey "What would happen if" questions with no goal.)
posted by chuma at 1:04 PM on October 31, 2006
(What makes a bad question on Ask MetaFilter?
- Open-ended chatty questions that don't offer a problem to be solved.
- Hypothetical or jokey "What would happen if" questions with no goal.)
posted by chuma at 1:04 PM on October 31, 2006
Does your opinion change if you know that Alice is a married woman, who is having an affair with a married man?
Maybe, but first you'd have to explain how it's related to this contract matter at all. Without an explanation, I'll give a firm no.
posted by peeedro at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2006
Maybe, but first you'd have to explain how it's related to this contract matter at all. Without an explanation, I'll give a firm no.
posted by peeedro at 1:07 PM on October 31, 2006
alice is either dumb as a rock or not truthful, my vote is that she is lying. if she did not believe the contract was all encompassing she would not have tried to changed it. secondly, attempting to modify a contract without the other parties being aware paints her in a bad light. i don’t see how this is any different than lying to be honest.
although i don’t think her affair has any bearing on thing i imagine it will taint many peoples’ options of alice.
posted by phil at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2006
although i don’t think her affair has any bearing on thing i imagine it will taint many peoples’ options of alice.
posted by phil at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2006
They're both idiots and so is the lawyer who wrote the contract and any lawyer willing to represent either of these two losers.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:11 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 1:11 PM on October 31, 2006 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks all for your feedback! And, to respond to some comments above, yes, I am a lawyer -- but this is not my case (or area of law). It's a friend of my mum's who is one of the ladies and they asked me what I thought. Legally, I think the agreement is well drafted and will hold up -- but the jury will get to hear the testimony on the two ladies' intentions so that's why I asked you guys.
Alice's whole argument appears to be that just didn't intend to sign away her accident claim and since the agreement doesn't say "and the car accident claim" she says she simply didn't know. She says she didn't really consult an attorney even though she signed an agreement that plainly says "I consulted an independent attorney."
Betty says she didn't mention the car accident in the agreement because she had no idea how many different claims Alice might come up with so she wanted to treat them all the same way. She feared that mentioning the car accident would cause a potential jury to say "well, you listed the car accident, why didn't you list everything else?"
posted by GIRLesq at 1:12 PM on October 31, 2006
Alice's whole argument appears to be that just didn't intend to sign away her accident claim and since the agreement doesn't say "and the car accident claim" she says she simply didn't know. She says she didn't really consult an attorney even though she signed an agreement that plainly says "I consulted an independent attorney."
Betty says she didn't mention the car accident in the agreement because she had no idea how many different claims Alice might come up with so she wanted to treat them all the same way. She feared that mentioning the car accident would cause a potential jury to say "well, you listed the car accident, why didn't you list everything else?"
posted by GIRLesq at 1:12 PM on October 31, 2006
Response by poster: KAS:
First, "Claims" are defined broadly "all known and unknown" so yes, the car accident should fall into that definition.
I do not know what Betty's lawyer's strategies are, but I think the court will first look at the plain language of the contract. If that language is ambiguous, they can look at outside evidence to interpret terms (the parole evidence rule). The surreptitious changes are certainly relevant to what Alice intended and understood but you are right that Alice's lawyer will likely balk over settlement discussions being admitted as evidence.
posted by GIRLesq at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2006
First, "Claims" are defined broadly "all known and unknown" so yes, the car accident should fall into that definition.
I do not know what Betty's lawyer's strategies are, but I think the court will first look at the plain language of the contract. If that language is ambiguous, they can look at outside evidence to interpret terms (the parole evidence rule). The surreptitious changes are certainly relevant to what Alice intended and understood but you are right that Alice's lawyer will likely balk over settlement discussions being admitted as evidence.
posted by GIRLesq at 1:23 PM on October 31, 2006
I'd need to see the contract that was signed in order to decide. The facts given here are pretty clearly skewed towards Betty as the more sympathetic party.
Alice's marital problems are of no consequence and should not be part of the case. I might actually be inclined to be more sympathetic towards Alice if Betty's lawyer dragged an unrelated personal matter into the court case, because it would look like Betty was attempting to smear Alice.
posted by decathecting at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2006
Alice's marital problems are of no consequence and should not be part of the case. I might actually be inclined to be more sympathetic towards Alice if Betty's lawyer dragged an unrelated personal matter into the court case, because it would look like Betty was attempting to smear Alice.
posted by decathecting at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2006
Was Betty consulting a lawyer when drawing up the contract? It does seem a little weird that a contract could include a clause that says "I relinquish my right ever to sue you for anything, ever again".
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by LobsterMitten at 1:27 PM on October 31, 2006
Response by poster: Chuma:
Thanks for your comment, I see your point. But the answers here actually help Betty decide if she should make a settlement offer or if she should proceed to trial with no offer.
posted by GIRLesq at 1:28 PM on October 31, 2006
Thanks for your comment, I see your point. But the answers here actually help Betty decide if she should make a settlement offer or if she should proceed to trial with no offer.
posted by GIRLesq at 1:28 PM on October 31, 2006
I would think that Alice's surreptitious edit of the contract would make her seem less trustworthy in the eyes of the jury - especially if she admits to the change and effectively lying in the contract (by not consulting with a lawyer).
On the other hand, I've found that many lay people have a view of contract law that basically boils down to "tough shit." Betty didn't get Alice to specifically waive Alice's auto accident claims even though she could have written the contract that way, so tough shit.
I would vote for Betty, but you never know how a jury will vote.
posted by thewittyname at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2006
On the other hand, I've found that many lay people have a view of contract law that basically boils down to "tough shit." Betty didn't get Alice to specifically waive Alice's auto accident claims even though she could have written the contract that way, so tough shit.
I would vote for Betty, but you never know how a jury will vote.
posted by thewittyname at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2006
"...But the answers here actually help Betty decide if she should make a settlement offer or if she should proceed to trial with no offer."
posted by GIRLesq at 4:28 PM EST on October 31
If Betty is making litigation decisions by factoring in the opinions of randomly responding Internet voices, who've never seen her settlement contract, don't know Alice, have only a sketchy idea of what the claims of any lawsuits are, and don't even have any clear ideas as to jurisdictional matters, Betty is a greater fool than she has already been made out.
GIRLesq, tell Betty to put aside what she hears on the Internet, or at the beauty shop, or in church groups, and hire a reputable attorney with practice experience in personal injury law, and do what the attorney says. And nothing else.
posted by paulsc at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by GIRLesq at 4:28 PM EST on October 31
If Betty is making litigation decisions by factoring in the opinions of randomly responding Internet voices, who've never seen her settlement contract, don't know Alice, have only a sketchy idea of what the claims of any lawsuits are, and don't even have any clear ideas as to jurisdictional matters, Betty is a greater fool than she has already been made out.
GIRLesq, tell Betty to put aside what she hears on the Internet, or at the beauty shop, or in church groups, and hire a reputable attorney with practice experience in personal injury law, and do what the attorney says. And nothing else.
posted by paulsc at 1:57 PM on October 31, 2006
It also changes things that you seem to be in the UK somewhere.
posted by koeselitz at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2006
posted by koeselitz at 1:59 PM on October 31, 2006
« Older WordPress/LiveJournal cross-posting? | Why would a doctor pick someone up by their head? Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
GIRLesq -- I assume you're an attorney for one of the parties? Better hope no one on the jury reads Mefi!
posted by turducken at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2006