Silani makes reference to two offers to settle whereby it agreed to discontinue the motion for summary judgment in connection with the first offer if its draft discovery plan was approved. In connection with the second offer, if Grande delivered a sworn affidavit of documents within one week then Silani would discontinue its motion. In connection with both offers, Silani required Grande to pay its costs. However, the costs were not defined. The offer to settle in this case can be considered an offer to settle by a defendant pursuant to rule 49.10(2). However, because the costs as sought by Silani were not set out in the offers to settle I consider the offers ambiguous and not in compliance with the rule. See Hayden v. Stevenson (2010) 88 C.P.C. (6th) 371.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.