Exam questions: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
Created page with "{{a|devil|}}A page dedicated to those curly juridical conundrums that real life occasionally throws up. You have three hours. ===Privity, loss and the litigation settlement d..."
 
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
===Privity, loss and the litigation settlement deed===
===Privity, loss and the litigation settlement deed===


Persons E, R and A once interacted in unsavoury ways.
A few years ago Eddie, Robbie and Andy met in unsavoury circumstances. Robbie said Eddie and Andy did some unspeakable things to him. He sued Eddie.


It's all messy, but a while ago E settled all claims R made relating to a notional set of alleged civil wrongs, including ones allegedly committed vs R by A, by paying A $500,000.
A while ago, Eddie settled all Robbie’s claims, including any related claims against Andy, by paying Robbie $500,000.


R accepted this in full and final settlement of all claims vs E, on legal advice, without duress, and with no admission of liability by E (or on behalf of A).
Robbie accepted this settlement in full and final settlement of all claims against Eddie, on legal advice, without duress, and neither Eddie nor Andy admitted any of Robbie’s allegations actually happened. As part of his settlement with Eddie, Robbie agreed not to sue either of them.


Let's then say E died.
A few years later, Eddie died.


Later, R launched a civil suit against A, notwithstanding the allegations being covered by the prior settlement agreement with the late E.
A few years after that, Robbie launched a new civil suit against Andy relating to the same alleged events, notwithstanding the prior settlement agreement with the late Eddie.


Assuming it is enforceable according to its terms, what relevance is the full and final settlement between E (dec’d) and R?
The settlement agreement is enforceable according to its terms.


If we can take this as R’s own subjective assessment of the total value to R of the injury caused by all the notional events covered by the settlement (hence satisfactory compensation, otherwise R would not have agreed it), then:
1. Under Robbie’s new suit against Andy, is the settlement agreement relevant to:


(i) the total value of A’s civil wrong, if it happened, being only part of that notional set of events, must be less than that total amount; and
(A) whether Robbie has a claim versus Andy at all?


(ii) seeing as R has already been paid that amount, by R’s own admission, R has already been compensated in full for A’s actions, whatever they were, and cannot claim further amounts.
(B) the amount Robbie way claim in damages if he wins the suit?


Can R claim against A, and for how much?
2. Imagine the events in question involved only Robbie and Andy, and Eddie was simply an insurer, who had paid Robbie under an insurance policy covering the alleged events. Ignoring any subrogation rights Eddie may have against Andy, would your answers change?

Latest revision as of 18:34, 4 January 2022

In which the curmudgeonly old sod puts the world to rights.
Index — Click ᐅ to expand:
The Devil’s Advocate
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

A page dedicated to those curly juridical conundrums that real life occasionally throws up. You have three hours.

Privity, loss and the litigation settlement deed

A few years ago Eddie, Robbie and Andy met in unsavoury circumstances. Robbie said Eddie and Andy did some unspeakable things to him. He sued Eddie.

A while ago, Eddie settled all Robbie’s claims, including any related claims against Andy, by paying Robbie $500,000.

Robbie accepted this settlement in full and final settlement of all claims against Eddie, on legal advice, without duress, and neither Eddie nor Andy admitted any of Robbie’s allegations actually happened. As part of his settlement with Eddie, Robbie agreed not to sue either of them.

A few years later, Eddie died.

A few years after that, Robbie launched a new civil suit against Andy relating to the same alleged events, notwithstanding the prior settlement agreement with the late Eddie.

The settlement agreement is enforceable according to its terms.

1. Under Robbie’s new suit against Andy, is the settlement agreement relevant to:

(A) whether Robbie has a claim versus Andy at all?

(B) the amount Robbie way claim in damages if he wins the suit?

2. Imagine the events in question involved only Robbie and Andy, and Eddie was simply an insurer, who had paid Robbie under an insurance policy covering the alleged events. Ignoring any subrogation rights Eddie may have against Andy, would your answers change?

Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Exam_questions&oldid=61028"