Evidence-Wellborn SU2006 Outline

O there is no suggestion in the letter of efforts to

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: ngs. Panel of Superior court reversed and granted Mulach a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in admitting this correspondence between the parties' attorneys (re: the itemized list of damages) Issue: Was the correspondence in the present case related to an offer of compromise and therefore inadmissible under Rule 408? Holding: Correspondence was not an offer of compromise and was therefore admissible. o "Offer to compromise is generally defined as the settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an adjustment of conflicting claims" Rochester stating items of damages caused by Mulach and demanding the estimated amount for their repair cannot be construed as an offer to compromise a disputed claim. Mulach's response, accepting responsibility for some items while refusing responsibility for others, does not in any way suggest that it is an offer to compromise a disputed claim. o There is no suggestion in the letter of efforts to negotiate a compromise! In fact, Mulach's letter suggests that it is unwilling...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 08/28/2008 for the course N 483 taught by Professor Wellborn during the Summer '08 term at University of Texas.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online