The "without prejudice" concept states that remarks made in a "without prejudice" document or stated verbally on a "without prejudice" basis in a sincere endeavor to settle the issue will normally not be admissible in court as evidence against the person making the statement. For example, if I tell your attorney that I would like to speak with you before deciding whether to accept a settlement offer, this statement can be used against me in court if we ever go to trial for the underlying matter. However, since I have said this "without prejudice" my attorney cannot use my failure to respond to the settlement offer as evidence that I am liable for the claim. He could use this fact, however, if it helped him prove negligence on my part (for example, if I knew about the alleged dangerous condition of the step but failed to warn people about it). At its most basic, the "without prejudice" concept prevents parties from using statements made during settlement negotiations as weapons at trial. Since these statements cannot be used as evidence, they must be truthful; therefore, parties should avoid statements that are false or misleading. Generally speaking, the party who makes a statement "without prejudice" is not required to do anything in return. There is no requirement that the other party grant consent to settle or even respond to the statement at all.