Without Prejudice section of a letter I believe I have a good understanding of the meaning and implications of using the words "without prejudice" in a document which you may want to show in court. To date, when I have offered a settlement it has always been on a separate document which I make mention of in my notice, however I now find myself dealing with a person who does not have a good grasp of English. I need to send them a notice (while trying not to upset them) and am trying to keep things as simple as possible as a result. What would the likely implication to the admissibility of writing a letter, and then adding a paragraph to the end - in brackets, starting with the words "(Without prejudice, ...) " followed by things I'm willing to do to help them be? The issue I'm trying to resolve is that a tenant is in breach of an agreement because of how and where they are dumping inorganic waste. I simply want it removed, although doing this will be a big job for the tenant - I'm quite happy for the tenant to use my tractor to help move the waste and to arrange extra empties of my tip for him, but don't want this to be construed as changing our agreement or binding me to continue to allow him to use my tip in the future.
You believe wrong - that is not what without prejudice means and it won't do what you want. Without prejudice only has meaning within the context of an effort to negotiate the resolution of a dispute. So far, so good, you have a dispute and are trying to negotiate a resolution: this letter can be marked without prejudice. What it means is that this letter cannot be used as evidence of concessions made by you if you (or they) ultimately take legal action unless you both waive your without prejudice right. A document that simply asserts your rights and makes no concessions is not without prejudice even if it is marked as such. A mixed document can be without prejudice as to the concessions but still admissible as to the assertions. However, let's assume that you resolve your dispute along the lines you suggest: you provide a tractor and empties gratis and it all gets sorted out. The fact that there was an agreement and its terms is not and cannot be without prejudice. If you wind up in dispute in the future and the tenant seeks to resolve it on the same terms and you can't or won't then they can point to the fact that you waived your rights previously and that they have an expectation that this was a permanent waiver. Don't overthink this: just put in your letter where you make the offer that this is a one time thing and you are not waiving your rights now or in the future.
No The criteria for adverse possession is that you have to be in possession without permission. A tenant, even one that pays no rent (or stops paying rent), has permission.
would it be interpreted in favor of the person who did not draft the terms? Yes, provided that the interpretation is reasonable. That is known as the doctrine of contra proferentem. Here, the term "deliverables and associated documents" might entail a contradiction if that term [allegedly or literally] encompasses "source code or content". That depends on what definition(s) of "deliverables and associated documents" can be adduced from the contract. The term could refer to items that are not "source code or content", such as the binary files (i.e., executables and DLLs), instructions &amp; documentation on how to operate and troubleshoot the application, and so forth. In that case, there would be no contradiction because there is no overlap between these items and the source code. if term A) is written on line 10 and term B) is written on line 11, is it resonable to assume term B) takes precedence or modifies term A? No. The sequence of clauses/terms itself does not determine which one outweighs or qualifies the other. Instead, the language used in the contract is indicative of the parties' intent and therefore how the terms of that contract relate to each other.
The language "I therefore place you on notice that" in your proposed missive is superfluous and adds nothing that is legally relevant. Flourishes like that are common among former paralegals, court clerks, common law country notaries, and other non-lawyers who want to sound legalistic but don't really have the relevant legal knowledge. It is common to say "I put so and so on notice that" in a legal opinion or a summary of a case, but mildly uncommon and not necessary to put those magic words in the notice itself in a situation like this where there is no prescribed statutory language that must be used on a specific legal form. In this situation the important thing is that the person is actually made aware of the situation, not that you conform to a statutory form. Also does it add anything to have stated the effect if they do not do so ("This may be detrimental..."), if the matter proceeds to a court case? If they complain of a lack of an opportunity to inspect in a later court case, it allows you to say, "I told you so and I gave you a chance to do something about it" which might be fairly convincing to a judge and would probably overcome any arguments that you engaged in spoliation of evidence.
It is done to prevent or at least provide a defence against a latter argument based on Estoppel; which at the risk of trivialising something that is very complex means that if you indicate to someone that you will or won't do something and they act on that indication then they may have a claim if you don't do what you indicated. When lawyers say this they are usually outlining a client's possible future actions so estoppel is in play. If they include this they are specifically saying "... But we might not do that."
A typo in a contract does not ever void the contract. If the typo changes the meaning of the contract from what was actually intended, then it is up to a judge to interpret the contract and whether it is reasonable that a person would assume its intended meaning. In your example, it is obvious that the word "least" was meant to be there and not "lease" - as the alternate word makes no sense in context - so a judge would not void the contract or release you from your 30 day obligation (which is probably even granted to the landlord by local laws regardless of whether it was stated in the contract). Even misspellings of people's names or addresses on a lease do not void a contract if you have already paid or taken up residence. If any of these situations were brought to court, the judge would just amend the contract to a corrected version that would then serve as the contract between the two parties, replacing the version with the typo. This is known as contract reformation.
One path would be to get compliance, by demonstrating that it is legally required. The best evidence that he is legally required to wear a mask is this recent mandate from the Department of Public Health. However, I cannot find a corresponding executive order, which may be in a generic form empowering CDPH to issue orders. Any imposition of penalties for violation must be publicly announced and rest on legislative authority. The mandate is not generally enforced, except in a few cases regarding bars and restaurants. There are various persuasive avenues that you could pursue, such as asking CDPH to come talk to him (unlikely, but you could try), complaining to the property owner, appealing to local social media to apply pressure (possibly putting yourself at legal risk for defamation, if you make a false statement). There are two more involved legal actions to contemplate. One is to terminate the lease and move elsewhere. This would likely result in an action to collect the remainder of the rent, but the strategy would be to argue that the manager has interfered with your private enjoyment of the premise. A second, highly improbable, is to sue the manager and get an enforceable court order requiring him to wear a mask. Courts have a prejudice against ordering people to take actions when other options exist (terminating the lease, monetary compensation). It could be an interesting but expensive test case to see if you could get a judge to order the manager to wear a mask. So yes they are obligated to wear masks, but legal enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
No, it’s not bad In fact it can do a great deal of good. It’s entirely possible that you will negotiate a settlement that is better for both of you than court. Negotiations undertaken in such circumstances are inadmissible in court - the legal term is without prejudice. The reasoning is that is good public policy for parties to be able to resolve disputes without needing a court and that they should be free to make admissions, concessions and offers without the threat that these will be used against them if they do need to go to court. Be careful about accusing people of things like ‘dishonesty’ First, interpretation of other people’s behaviour depends a lot on where you stand. If you are in dispute with someone you are likely to attribute motives to them that may not be there or may not be apparent to a more detached observer. For example, offers can be withdrawn at any time prior to their acceptance - doing so is not “dishonest”. Second, (dis)honesty is a question of fact, not opinion, and it involves more than whether someone is always truthful - people can tell falsehoods and still be honest. Stating that someone is dishonest when you can’t prove that they are, in fact, dishonest is defamation.