Legal Disagreement - Being Ignored by Other Party

[TheBestHippogriff]

Hi,

Is there a legal term - possibly something like "bad faith" - that can be cited when you have a disagreement with another party but are trying to seek a settlement through communication and negotiation and then they start to ignore you?

I am in this position, the other party attempted to pressurise me to agree to something by introducing a deadline, when I did not agree and that deadline passed, they have now begun to ignore me and are acting as though are disagreement is finished, without any kind of resolution. They are the more powerful party in our disagreement, i.e. a company with hired solicitors, whereas I have been trying to be reasonable and arrive at an amicable settlement.

Now the other, more powerful party, is ignoring me it looks like we might eventually end up in Court. As I have email records of our discussions and emai read receipts where I see they've read my emails but not responded at all, can that information serve me well in Court by demonstrating that the other party cut all communication channels?

Also, what legal term would I be looking at here, or is it "bad faith"?

Thanks in advance.

[factor-fiction]

I'm not sure of the term but I also don't see any need to use any technical legal terms. What would you be going to court for- do they owe you money? If so how much? If they owe you money your next step is to take them to court. The process you follow depends on the claim value
PS - your user name is so long it's throwing out the screen layout.

[TheBestHippogriff]

Your questions don't help, unfortunately. The issue is there is a disagreement that will need resolving one way or the other and the other party is burying their head in the sand and refusing to communicate... tactically. It is intentional and a deliberate way of adding frustration on my side. I want to know what this is referred to in legal terms. I do not need advice on the process to follow depending on what the issue is about. Thanks for trying though.

Re. length of username, it's not my problem, but the website's problem. If it was an issue, then they'd restrict username length.

[KARL]

There may not be a proper term for precisely what you describe but if there is then someone may be able to answer your question on here. There is a term called vexatious conduct, used particularly when frustrating or needling someone within the litigation process and in effect causing trouble and using procedure to do it - this may be of some relevance to you. You clearly don't want to reveal the nature of the dispute, but if it is a consumer matter then I sympathise. My experience of such disputes is that while there are a number of ways to get advice and sympathy (including astonishment as to what some parties get up to, indignation at the blatant contempt) there is no organisation around to solve this sort of thing outside the courts. Although there are trade bodies which will take on a role of sorts, they are paid by their tradesmen members so are by definition not impartial. In my case (perhaps like yours) I had lots and lots of paperwork but the relevant staff were overruled by the hierarchy and the matter was thrown out because there was no way but to find in my favour. My case ended up in court which was an eyeopening experience: Bending of procedure to favour the businessman and an inequitable final result (I won 75% of the argument but was made to pay the business 75% of their costs). I also found that solicitors feel they are at a disadvantage against companies whom they actually find intimidating. Finally, the deeper pockets can hire the more forceful representation, even unscrupulous ones - but it is an adversarial system looking for a winner, not fairness. Whatever the court decides, fair or unfair, is by definition justice. As I was, you are almost certainly very much on your own - it is a wretched situation.

[TheBestHippogriff]

This all sounds very familiar. And "vexatious conduct" seems quite apt, but outside the legal process for me. I would prefer to avoid Court at all costs (no pun intended) but not if I am to be simply screwed-over outside the Court system; I will fight. While I still try to contact them, suggest possible settlements (in my mind reasonable ones) all I get back, well, is absolutely nothing! Thank you.

[KARL]

Familiar indeed. I went to considerable lengths to arrive at a resolution outside the courts but in the end the trader took me to court as a debt collection case because it was a blatant rip-off exercise, as indeed was comprehensively decided by the court, although that emerges when you look at the points at issue, not using that word. Other than meekly paying up (many, many thousands), I had no choice but to fight. The cost was enormous, but at least he also ended up with a major cost - but that would simply make a small dent in his profits. Right at the very end, but more so afterwards, I discovered that he used and continues to use lawsuits to intimidate ripped off customers - he is a serial litigator. This is a known form of business policy which is odious, but provides business for the legal profession. Worst of all, those who have got caught by such traps are extremely reluctant to talk about it. The reason is that it is a hugely bruising experience (not just financially - it drains you in every sense). The consequence is that these cases are a dirty secret that only those closest to the victims know. There is little hope of an improvement to this part of human existence in our society because there is no push for it.

[factor-fiction]

OK, TheBestHippogriff I was only suggesting you change your name. Your commen "Re. length of username, it's not my problem, but the website's problem. If it was an issue, then they'd restrict username lengtht" is a problem AB should resolve but it's also a problem for other users.
Regarding your query I'm afraid that I can't help you as I can't follow what your issue is with this other party, and I can't see why you need the term you say you need. What's wrong with using your own words? Why do you need to use a technical term that "will serve you well in court". Which court? What for?

[TheBestHippogriff]

factor30 - you're good at asking questions, but not so good at answering them... ;-) so let's agree that you can't help me in this instance, I'm OK with that and no offence is intended. The detail behind the issue doesn't really matter - and if I went into it it'd quickly get convoluted - but the problem is being ignored by a professional outfit when you are involved in a situation that neither of you can just walk away from, i.e. we must deal with each other at some point, but they are using stonewalling tactics to frustrate. Maybe I'm just looking to educate myself? Thanks for trying again.

[factor-fiction]

OK- I still haven't a clue what the issue is, but is the word stonewalling?

[TheBestHippogriff]

Ha! Mebbe, just mebbe...

[KARL]

Just an additional thought: If you think you might end up in court then be sure to know whether any insurance policy you hold (house, contents, travel, etc.) includes legal cover. If that is the case then you have an option to hand the dispute to them (if so, better tell them about the possibility of a court case earlier rather than later). At that point you would pretty much lose all control over developments and in all likelihood the insurer will make a deal with the other party to avoid rising costs. That in turn means your opponent gets off with a compromise (gain) - something that some people count on when provoking a dispute on weak grounds.