Vigorous Defence?
Discussion
My company has come to blows with a supplier. (Its the company i took over back in 2005) and the fight is about something that predates me taking it over.
Its all very time consuming, so I won't write up exactly the history. However, the company i took over had 2 directors. One died about 5 months before i took over, and the other continued on when the company changed hands.
The fight revolves around a missing letter to a supplier before i took over. The living director swore blind that the letter was sent, and the supplier continued to invoice despite being told many times that we had left (i spoke to various directors).
Late last year, the surviving director, a very old friend, died unexpectedly. The supplier last week did a final chase (for the 4th time) for all the money they felt we were owed.
Now, my position is simply bring it on. Its only going to small claims anyway and if i lose its not a huge amount of money. But in my reply, i offered them a compromise: we would pay 1 of the 4 outstanding invoices and call it quits.
I also mentioned that my co-director had died.
The reply back was that they were going to accept my offer because "with the loss of Mr XXXXXX you will be unable to mount a vigoruous defence".
The company will be paid the invoice I offered to settle on, but its left me wondering, what is "vigorous defence"? or did they just make that up?
Its all very time consuming, so I won't write up exactly the history. However, the company i took over had 2 directors. One died about 5 months before i took over, and the other continued on when the company changed hands.
The fight revolves around a missing letter to a supplier before i took over. The living director swore blind that the letter was sent, and the supplier continued to invoice despite being told many times that we had left (i spoke to various directors).
Late last year, the surviving director, a very old friend, died unexpectedly. The supplier last week did a final chase (for the 4th time) for all the money they felt we were owed.
Now, my position is simply bring it on. Its only going to small claims anyway and if i lose its not a huge amount of money. But in my reply, i offered them a compromise: we would pay 1 of the 4 outstanding invoices and call it quits.
I also mentioned that my co-director had died.
The reply back was that they were going to accept my offer because "with the loss of Mr XXXXXX you will be unable to mount a vigoruous defence".
The company will be paid the invoice I offered to settle on, but its left me wondering, what is "vigorous defence"? or did they just make that up?
justinp1 said:
What they are saying is that the director who has sadly dies will not be able to come to court to give evidence and thus they are saying this weakens your position.
Whether you continue on is of course based on how defendable the case is and the monies at stake.
Whether you continue on is of course based on how defendable the case is and the monies at stake.
Thats what i figured out.
What I was wondering was whether they had been advised that as we couldn't submit a "vigorous defence", and considering they have dragged their feet over this issue for well over a year (when the director was alive), that they had somehow sunk their own case?
(Their case was pretty sunk anyway. We had advice last year from a QC to ride this one out.)
What gets me is that they thought they had a clear shot at the goal with this case. If i were in their position with such a clear shot, i'd take the shot and not settle. So, when they settle for quite a bit short, i wonder if they were advised to settle with whatever they could get.
"Vigorous" has no legal meaning and is normally used by solicitors of their clients who are posturing, be it with a view to going to court, or settling.
I avoid use of the word personally, as I often think the use of the word implies a bluff, and isn't always taken seriously. In other words, I consider the use of the word to be a sign of weakness.
e.g. the matter would be defended vigorously if it proceeds to court, but in the spirit of compromise, we will offer £x to settle. Yeah, whatever, if they are so confident, then why settle? There can be financial considerations however, and that may be one in this case.
Question is whether the bluff can be called? Yes, in the absence of the director, it will difficult to defend. However, they have to prove the claim, on a balamce of probabilities in the first place. Has that been done?
I avoid use of the word personally, as I often think the use of the word implies a bluff, and isn't always taken seriously. In other words, I consider the use of the word to be a sign of weakness.
e.g. the matter would be defended vigorously if it proceeds to court, but in the spirit of compromise, we will offer £x to settle. Yeah, whatever, if they are so confident, then why settle? There can be financial considerations however, and that may be one in this case.
Question is whether the bluff can be called? Yes, in the absence of the director, it will difficult to defend. However, they have to prove the claim, on a balamce of probabilities in the first place. Has that been done?
RichBurley said:
"Vigorous" has no legal meaning and is normally used by solicitors of their clients who are posturing, be it with a view to going to court, or settling.
I avoid use of the word personally, as I often think the use of the word implies a bluff, and isn't always taken seriously. In other words, I consider the use of the word to be a sign of weakness.
e.g. the matter would be defended vigorously if it proceeds to court, but in the spirit of compromise, we will offer £x to settle. Yeah, whatever, if they are so confident, then why settle? There can be financial considerations however, and that may be one in this case.
Question is whether the bluff can be called? Yes, in the absence of the director, it will difficult to defend. However, they have to prove the claim, on a balamce of probabilities in the first place. Has that been done?
I avoid use of the word personally, as I often think the use of the word implies a bluff, and isn't always taken seriously. In other words, I consider the use of the word to be a sign of weakness.
e.g. the matter would be defended vigorously if it proceeds to court, but in the spirit of compromise, we will offer £x to settle. Yeah, whatever, if they are so confident, then why settle? There can be financial considerations however, and that may be one in this case.
Question is whether the bluff can be called? Yes, in the absence of the director, it will difficult to defend. However, they have to prove the claim, on a balamce of probabilities in the first place. Has that been done?
Very interesting. Thank you.
The question that arose was whether they got the cancellation letter. The dead director was adamant that the letter went to them in good time to cancel the contract, they are adamant that they never got it. When the contract ran out (eg after we gave the required notice) we stopped taking the service and this can be shown. They contacted us at the time to enquire why, and were told that a letter had been sent to cancel.
I personally think that they are bluffing. The case is far too grey for anyone to know the outcome with any certainty. However, they've taken my compromise which is good enough for me. I think they are in the same position as me, that its not enough money for a good punch up, there are no points to be won off each other.
I hate to say this, but with the other director dead i reckon they were more willing to do a deal. To say he would spur people into a punch up is an understatement. He lived for the fight (not physical), he liked the dramatics of going to court and defending his case. Strangely enough - he won most of his days in court.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff