Of course I want to negotiate a settlement. The issue has been approached by way of haggling as regards what the defendants responsibilities are in terms of specific damages to be covered. Positions have become entrenched as to what they believe should be covered and what I believe should be covered in terms of interpretation of the contract.If you want to negotiate a settlement, negotiate a settlement.
It's not an exercise in superficial optics.Making a half-arsed effort to try and look good when it comes to court is just a waste of time & frankly makes you look like an ejit.
We're pretty sure of the defence that the defendants are running with -it's a case of contract interpretation and the advice I've received suggest them to be wrong. It's arbitration so it will be a case of determining the extent of damages. What I don't want is a scenario whereby legal costs go against me.Without Prejudice discussions can be a useful way to tease out what possible defences the defendants have. Some litigation is fraught with uncertainty!
Some litigation is fraught with uncertainty!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?