I work as a technical consultant within the firework industry, an industry which receives many claims for damages / injury each year. My role is to deal with these claims as efficiently as possible. They range from replacing damaged clothing to serious property damage and personal injury - yet all follow a very similar format when it comes to what evidence is available. In a great deal of cases it is easier to settle the claim for smaller amounts as a "goodwill gesture" rather than wasting many man-hours fighting the various companies corners - even when we know we are right. This frees up resources to put to the bigger battles.
Originally Posted by
pilotmike
Ask yourself the questions:
a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?
b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?
Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.
Given the background to my thoughts above and applying the same train of thought to the two points quoted .
For a) we would be 100% certain to stand our ground and fight our corner, whereas for b) we would be almost 100% certain to settle "out of court" to reduce costs.
I won't know how best to act if I do not know what the customer is seeking by way of recompense. Knowing the threat and being able to take the path of least resistance for us makes sense.