Under what circumstances would a defendant be wise to settle out of court? Explain.

Social Studies

1 answer:

Cloud [144]3 years ago

3 0

Answer:

It might be best to settle out of court if the parties do not have the means to wait for the full resolution from the courts or if the plaintiff is likely to win and the defendant wants to keep the details more private.

Explanation:

It would be wise for a defendant to settle out of court when the trial will be lengthy and they may not have the means to wait for a long settlement and drawn out procedure. If the injured party feels the terms of the settlement are favorable to them and they are satisfied with what is being offered, it might be in their best interest to accept as well. This also helps to keep the terms about the negotiation and deal struck more private than a trial and hearing might. If the defendant is a company for example they might want to keep information about the grievance against them private.

You might be interested in

A colleague asks you for advice on how to understand the audience of his persuasive message. Which of the following pieces of ad

maksim [4K]

D. consider the psychological principles....

7 0

3 years ago

True or false Physical and social mobility is limited in the rural areas.

Temka [501]

Answer:

<h3> i think its False </h3>

Mark me as brainlist 

5 0

3 years ago

What is the take-home message of solomon asch's series of experiments in which participants were asked to judge the lengths of l

pogonyaev

The answer is "People will go to great lengths not to look like fools in front of others".

The Asch Experiment, by Solomon Asch, was a well known test intended to test how peer pressure to accommodate would impact the judgment and independence of a test subject. The examination was basic in its development; every member, thus, was solicited to answer an arrangement from questions, for example, which line was longest or which coordinated the reference line.

4 0

3 years ago

Which of the following IS NOT true about the Roman Senate?

tatyana61 [14]

I don’t Karen a noun the cream I becad 2 +2 is I don’t know I hate my life and math

5 0

3 years ago

Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain example (updated by Professor Sandel to the Michael Jordan example) is supposed to illustrate that …

NNADVOKAT [17]

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

You forgot to include the options for this question. However, we can answer the following.

Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain example (updated by Professor Sandel to the Michael Jordan example) is supposed to illustrate that "liberty upsets patterns and, therefore, the entitlement conception of justice requires illegitimate restrictions of liberty. This applies to justice in holdings and justice in transfer.

American professor Robert Nozick, known for its interesting work at Harvard University, was a justice researcher and theorist who studied libertarian rights and the role of justice in modern society.

In 1974, he wrote the influential book called "Anarchy, State and Utopia," in which he defended the existence of a non-interventional state that granted liberties to citizens with minimal or none interference in the lives of people.

8 0

3 years ago

Read 2 more answers