Can I refuse to settle out of court even if the defendant agrees to pay my claim amount? I am suing a large corporation in small claims court for what I believe is a clear-cut case that I will win. The amount I am claiming is only a few hundred dollars and I suspect the company will offer to pay me rather that be defeated in court (and potentially get copycat suits, or a class action suit etc) Suppose they offer to settle and pay my claim, can I refuse? I would prefer to win in court, unless they are willing to settle for substantially more than I am claiming.
The company can't force you to settle out of court. But if it pays you what it says you owe it in an unconditional payment, it can cause your claim to fail on the merits at trial for a lack of damages. A company might want to do this to avoid the collateral estoppel consequences of a judicial determination of your liability. The doctrine of collateral estoppel would make judicial determinations on the merits on particular issues resolved in the case against it binding on the company in future lawsuits against other plaintiffs. A company cannot simply pay to defeat a claim on the merits, however, in a class action suit, without paying all of the amounts owed to all members of the proposed class. Some states also have procedural penalties such as costs or attorney fee shifting when a settlement offer is refused and the outcome at trial is not significantly better than the settlement offer, but I don't know if Florida has such a provision. If it did, your net win could easily be converted to a net loss.
Realistically, if your lawsuit is with the person who has been acting as your agent in the United States, small claims court is probably not the right way to go. If you are owed less than $10,000 (possibly including attorney fees), you probably need to hire a lawyer to pursue your case in the non-Small Claims Magistrate Division of the District Court. Lawyers are allowed in this forum, unlike the Small Claims division which is oriented towards pro se parties (i.e. people without lawyers). Small claims can consider only claims up to $4,000 against defendants in the county where the lawsuit is brought, and attorneys are now allowed in small claims court. (Source) Even if you can be in the Small Claims division of Magistrate's Court, the enforcement of a judgment if you win requires technical court documents which are essentially the same as those for collecting a judgment from any other court. Even when Zoom participation is allowed in a court, usually the main trial can't be conducted entirely remotely so someone needs to be in the courtroom representing you for the trial. (The only U.S. state where there is an actual right to participate in a civil court trial remotely is Alaska.) A lawyer will also often be more effective at negotiating a settlement, with or without a mediator, which would avoid the need for a trial at all, and mediations these days since COVID are routinely conducted remotely. Mediation is often required before a case goes to trial. If you are owed more than $10,000, you probably need to hire a lawyer to pursue your case in District Court (outside the Magistrate's Division). (Source) It is also possible in District Court (not the Magistrate's division) in some cases to resolve the case in &quot;motion practice&quot; based upon submitted papers, rather than in a hearing. This is not really a possibility in the Small Claims Court or the Magistrate's Division. Also, to be perfectly honest, the kind of case you describe is probably beyond the capacity of even a college educated person without legal training to do right and not screw up. Handling issues like service of process, the rules of evidence, and the collection of a judgment are all highly technical matters, and there may be legal claims related to possible misappropriation of funds that you might not know how to raise. Depending upon the language of your contract, the other side may even be able to demand a jury trial which is far beyond the capacity of an unrepresented person to manage, even if they are only doing it to force you to hire a lawyer. It could also be necessary to use the &quot;discovery&quot; process or subpoenas to obtain records needed to prove the case. For what it is worth, Idaho lawyers are less expensive than lawyers in much of the U.S., and Idaho is not known for having overcrowded courts the greatly delayed schedules, however.
Is there a legal argument to force the father to repay the debt if he is supporting his grown son? No, if you wanted to be paid back by the father, you should have told the adult son to tell his father to ask you for the money. Is there a legal argument to force the father to repay the debt if he is supporting his grown son? No, not unless you can go back in time and have the father co-sign each loan. Over the years, I lent him small sums that added up over time, which we kept track of on a spreadsheet. Over how many years? Is some of the debt more than two years old? If you're going to sue the son in Small Claims court, you only have two years to file your lawsuit and you must exclude all the debt that precedes those two years. In New York city, you can only sue in Small Claims court for up to $10,000. And no, you can't sue the father. And no, if the son is not clean, he most likely won't pay you back even if there is a Small Claims Court judgment against him.
Yes You asked for work to be done in the expectation you would have to pay for it and they did the work - that’s a legally binding contract. It appears that you did not agree on a price and possibly not on a time for making payment. If that is so, you agreed to pay a reasonable price in a reasonable time. They have issued an invoice stating what and when they believe is reasonable. You dispute parts of that invoice. That’s fine, people are allowed to have disputes. You have paid the undisputed amount I hope? Notwithstanding, your negotiations with the other party can go back and forth and things can be put on and taken off the table. But you don’t have a deal until you have a deal. At any time, either party can walk away and assert their rights. Or make a take it or leave it offer, commonly called playing hardball. Since it is undisputed that you owe them something, they can refer the debt to “collections (be that internal or an external debt collector). You should pay the undisputed amount immediately and you can continue to dispute the remainder. They will make a deal, initiate legal action, or let the matter die.
If you can persuade them to release the car without paying – but with a promise to pay – they could sue you to recover what you owe them for towing and storage (breech of contract). If not, you would have to sue them to recover the money you paid (which is the damage that they did to you). I cannot imagine a towing company releasing a vehicle without first being paid. There is no state which requires a towing company to release a towed vehicle just because the owner asks.
This is called double recovery, double compensation or over-recovery, and it is usually prohibited. The rule against double recovery is also known as the one-satisfaction rule. Courts may give effect to the rule by: refusing to enforce a judgment under the relevant civil procedure rules to the extent that it has already been recovered from a co-defendant, deducting damages already recovered from the amount awarded in any subsequent lawsuit, or ordering the restitution of doubly-recovered payments under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. The rule is an ancient principle of equity which developed over many centuries. The precise way in which the rule will be applied today depends on the jurisdiction and the nature of the claim. I'll outline two 18th century cases which establish the basic principle. For further information, consult a civil procedure textbook in your jurisdiction. Two early cases establishing the unjustness of double recovery In Moses v Macferlan (1760) 2 Burrow 1005, Moses and Macferlan settled a debt of £26 by agreeing that Moses would pay Macferlan £20 and indorse over four promissory notes to the value of 30s each (£6 total). Macferlan agreed to release Moses from liability as an indorser, but when Macferlan failed to recover the value of the notes from the issuer, he sued Moses in the Court of Conscience. Because that court's jurisdiction was limited to debts of up to 40s, it could not consider the terms of the £26 settlement and held Moses liable. Moses paid the £6, but successfully recovered it in the Court of King's Bench. Lord Mansfield said (at 1009): Money may be recovered by a right and legal judgment; and yet the iniquity of keeping that money may be manifest, upon grounds which could not be used by way of defence against the judgment. In Bird v Randall (1762) 3 Burrow 1345, a journeyman (Burford) contracted to work for a silk dresser (Bird) for five years. After just over a year, Burford left. Bird sued and obtained a judgment against Burford. Bird then sued Randall for 'enticing and seducing' Burford out of his service. After the case against Randall was commenced, but before it went to trial, Burford paid the first judgment. Randall then argued that Bird's action could not be maintained. Lord Mansfield said (at 1353): [T]he plaintiff must recover upon the justice and conscience of his case, and upon that only ... the penalty recovered by him from the servant was actually received by him before the present action came on to be tried; without any sort of difficulty ... [this] is against conscience ... If he had actually recovered it, through the defendant's not knowing "that the penalty had been paid," an action would lie against him, for money had and received: like the case out of the court of conscience, not long since determined in this court [Moses v Macferlan]. The double recovery rule in the modern United States In the scenario posed in the question, any attempt at double recovery is likely to be rejected without the need for detailed legal argument. Such a straightforward case would probably be settled without litigation, on terms providing for the debt to be apportioned between the joint debtors. But assuming that this doesn't happen, in a federal case, rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would apply: On motion and just terms, the court may relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons ... the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged[.] Different rules and procedures apply in the various State jurisdictions, but the underlying principles are generally similar. The theoretical and historical basis of the rule against double recovery, as an aspect of the law of restitution and unjust enrichment, continues to attract a great deal of academic and judicial attention in Commonwealth countries, although it seems to be of less interest to American lawyers: Saiman, 'Restitution in America: Why the US Refuses to Join the Global Restitution Party' (2008) 28(1) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 99–126.
The expected value formula involves multiplying the estimated dollar amount of each possible outcome by the estimated probability of that outcome adding up the result for every possibility. The results for each outcome have to include the ability to pay if you win and the cost of collecting if you win and the time value of money if not settling delays getting you paid. This formula is routinely used in litigation to evaluate settlements, but it is only a starting point, it isn't the only factor that should be considered. You need to consider the margin of error in the estimates. A big margin of error in the best or worst case scenario, or in a small probability, can make a huge difference. You also need to recognize that it is well known that the best lawyers who ultimately get the best results, routinely overestimate the strength of their own cases, and that clients usually overestimate the strength of their own cases as well. This is a well known cognitive bias and you need to correct for it. You need to include reaching a settlement later on, but before trial, in your list of possibilities. Often, even if it make sense to settle, making an offer at just the right moment instead of a less opportune time can make a big difference. Similarly, you have to consider the case from the other side's point of view to get a realistic sense of what the other side might be willing to pay. If it seems very likely that they would be willing to pay more, you might not want to accept an offer even if the amount offered would be good enough to be an acceptable result for you. You need to consider the future litigation costs that are avoided by settling, both in terms of dollars paid to lawyers and litigation costs, and in terms of lost time, expense and opportunity costs to you or your firm. You need to consider the economic harm that you may suffer from not having the matter resolved now rather than later. For example, suppose that your firm is about to have a public offering of stock, and if the litigation is not settled, the litigation will have to be disclosed and will have a disproportionate negative effect on the price investors will be willing to pay in the public offering. It may pay to settle a case for "more than its worth" to avoid the economic harm caused by having the litigation still outstanding. You need to consider the economic harm potentially caused by information disclosed in the context of a public trial which would reveal information that there is economic value in keeping secret, or that might encourage others to bring additional lawsuits. You need to consider the long term strategic impact of each possible outcome when considering each possibility and in considering settlement, and not just the impact in the immediate transaction. Once something has been proven in court, that loss in one case can frequently be held to have been judicially established in future cases in many circumstances. For example, if a contract term is determined to have a particular meaning in a lawsuit, and the court interprets it in an unfavorable way, that could influence the economic value of another 200,000 outstanding contracts with the same language where the meaning of this term has not been resolved in litigation, and it could open the door to a class action lawsuit against you on behalf of a class consisting of all 200,000 counter-parties with you on this contract. If it the contract interpretation makes only a $5 difference in each case, the incentive to prevent that from being resolved against you in court could be huge. On the other hand, if a corporation that engaged in many transactions gets a reputation for easily settling weak cases for generous amounts, they will be bombarded with frivolous lawsuits. Expected value really only makes sense with these adjustment and also only for repeat players in cases where the outcome of any particular case will not materially affect the person considering a settlement and there are no long term strategic effects, such as large employers and large companies in consumer cases that try to force other parties to resolve disputes with them on a case by case basis in confidential arbitration hearings that don't create precedents. It is less useful for one time participants in the legal system in a case with life changing consequences, as the benefits and costs of an outcome may be non-economic or may be non-linear (although this can be solved by more accurately valuing the dollar amounts in an expected value formula to consider the total impact of a particular result rather than the naive immediate payment). This non-linear factor is critical in these cases, however, because the personal utility value of an outcome is not strictly a matter of average dollar return. To give a simple and fairly common example, suppose that you have a case where you have a 70% chance of winning and a 30% chance of losing. If you lose you get nothing and pay nothing. If you win, you get $10,000,000. The expected value is $7,000,000. But, if you have someone who has never had real money in their life and will never have an opportunity to get real money in their life ever again, settling for a 100% chance of getting $3,000,000 could very well be better than getting a 70% chance of getting $10,000,000, because to that person the difference between getting $3,000,000 and $10,000,000 may not be very important, but the difference between getting at least $3,000,000 and getting $0 would be huge. One of the reasons that plaintiffs like to use class action lawsuits is that handling one big all or nothing cases causes businesses to stop thinking like expected value repeat player robots, and to start thinking like individuals who participate in litigation one time with high stakes, causing them to accept less optimal settlements for them relative to expected value to avoid the risk of a big disaster. Paying settlements or losing a modest percentage of small cases now and then won't harm anyone's career. Losing a big life or death of the company case after going to trial when a settlement that was a better deal was an option will cost the entire management team their careers and get many of the lawyers at the firm handling the defense of the case fired as well.
If I may paraphrase the scenario: The customer has a contract with the insurer The customer is contemplating undergoing a certain procedure and is unsure if it is covered under the contract The customer calls the insurer to ask this specific question The insurer says "yes" The customer undergoes the procedure The insurer refuses to pay on the ground that it is not covered under the contract. Let's put aside issues of evidence and what can be proved and assume these facts are not in dispute. There is no question that the contract has been renegotiated; it hasn't. This avoids the necessity of considering if the insurer's employee has the authority to do this or it the customer can rely that they do even if they don't. There are two possibilities: The procedure is covered and the insurer must pay under contract The procedure isn't covered and the insurer must pay under the tort of negligent misstatement. The insurer is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee. The insurer owes a duty of care to a customer who asks such a question to answer it correctly. It is foreseeable that the customer would act on the insurer's advice and incur costs that they may have avoided if the correct advice had been given. Nothing is ever certain in the law but this is as close as you can get.