Talk:Settlement (litigation)

message: there are 3 differant types of settlements one is dispersed were the settlements are well spread out, the second one is linear when the settlements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.192.169 (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Different types of settlements

message: A very lengthy section has been removed as vandalism.  Its removal was almost certainly appropriate, as it was unbalancing the article.  However, what has been removed is a substantial piece of writing, probably by a new editor.  The section removed should be considered for forking as a new article, unless something similar appears elsewhere in WP.  This should then have a cross-reference from this article.  I have not followed the matter up myslelf.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groundhog day 

message: Sorry but stuff like this: "Justice is not a central issue here, merely power: often one party has little option but to submit to the will of the other."
is not only NPOV, but patently false. The idea that one party has little option is ridiculous. By it's nature a settlement has to be agreed on by BOTH PARTIES. You can't force a settlement on someone. There is no way to use any vague "power" to make someone sign an agreement. The fact that some parties sometime settle because the lawsuit is a financial drain is there own fault for mismanaging the case, misjudging their financial situation or not using their resource adequately or doing their homework, it's has nothing to do with 'force.' In fact, most lawsuits don't need to go to trial which is why many courts make settlement discussions part of the process. If every civil case went to trial our courts would grind to a halt. I am removing both NPOV statements. Also, why are so many advocacy groups with special interests or who are based on some ideology constantly cited in articles like these or otherwise used as sources? This is a problem time and again with Wikipedia in general but it's really galling in cases like this when political spin on articles about legal terms and definitions which should be dryly factual.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.103.144.16 (talk) 10:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments are ridiculous. To say settlements are "agreed" to by both parties is absurd. To blame people who can't afford to pay for "mismanagement" is victim-blaming. The side with more money has a lot more power. They can hire better lawyers, and more lawyers, and they can afford to drag a case on and on. Or if a person is being threatened with an amount they can't possibly afford, they have little option but to give into the whims of the person threatening the lawsuit. The word "agreement" needs to be completely moved from this article, and for that matter, from the legal terminology as well. I assume you have money to make the kinds of comments you've made. Or maybe you're a lawyer who profits from the life-destructive kinds of money involved in many cases. Who makes a lot of money to believe in your system. And the only overdone ideology here is "law." 207.216.13.209 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: There is a move request at Talk:Settle that watchers of this article may be interested in. Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant move request