Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionZero
Scenario 1
Contract dispute btw P and D
P says "D owes me $100 bucks!"
D may admit P's statement as a party admission, as you mentioned.
P may also admit his own statement as hearsay evidence of the speaker's (in this case, P's) state of mind. This was a problem I helped another friend figure out; basically, P's statement isn't being offered for its truth, but only to show that P believed D owed him (P) the money.
In a contracts case, depending on the circumstances, I am fairly certain that mental state becomes relevant, such as if there were some reliance theory being put forth.
|
I agree. If it goes towards character or state of mind then the colour of the sky can be admitted. This is why I really dislike criminal and torts in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OptionZero
In a patent dispute, it's harder for me to envision the same pattern working, since state of mind of a speaker doesn't really go to anything in such a case, but you're the patent expert, I'm studying crim law (where the whole "sanity" issue makes what someone says relevant). I hope that made sense.
|
I'm no expert, but I'll say that IP litigation is more "civilised". Registered practitioners are generally regarded as having good moral character and their statements are never questioned.
The only time I see this type of things coming into play is with enrollment and discipline when they may get disbarred.