At present, the various jurisdictions hold with comparative uniformity that while offers to settle a dispute are not admissible in evidence, statements of independent fact made during such compromise negotiation are admissible. The routes of logic by which the courts arrive at this similarity in result are marked by some fundamental differences, as will be shown later, but the result is the same under any theory. The question therefore presents itself, whether the distinction made by the courts between the admissibility of offers to compromise and statements of fact made during compromise negotiations can be justified under a system of jurisprudence whose essential aim is justice between litigants.

Included in

Evidence Commons