Common Law - Civil - Grounds & Opposing Grounds

gk5000

My understanding of common law is that the plaintiff issues grounds, and then the respondent issues grounds to oppse these ; but that if they don't then the plaintiff's grounds stand.
So say the plaintiff issues 10 grounds, but only 5 are opposed, then the remaining 5 stand.

Is the above roughly correct? What is this called or where would I find more information on it?

Thanks.

Peregrinus

Procedure and terminology differs from court to court. But in general:

• The plaintiff asserts facts ("He did X and Y"), argues that the facts give rise to a legal liability ("This was a breach of contract") and asks for a remedy ("I want an award of damages").
• The defendant can refute the facts ("I did not to X or Y"), or argue that they don't give rise to a legal liablity ("This was not a breach of the contract") or oppose the remedy ("damages are not appropriate in this case"). Or he can do a combination of these things.
• If he's challenging facts, he doesn't necessarily have to challenge every fact. For example, if the plaintiff alleges that the defendant was driving a car and the car hit him, the plaintiff, then the defendant could choose simply to deny that he was the driver. That wouldn't mean that he was conceding that the collision occurred — after all, if he wasn't there, how can he know whether it occurred or not? He would be saying that, so far as a claim against him is concerned, it is irrelevant whether a collision occurred, because he was not driving the car in question.

For more detail on how this plays out, and who does what in what order, and how much of this is done in writing before the trial commences and how much in evidence/oral argument during the trial, you'd need to look at the rules of court for the particular court in which the claim is being brought.