California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Berman v. Bromberg, 56 Cal.App.4th 936, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 777 (Cal. App. 1997):
The foregoing rule "is intended to prevent sham pleadings omitting an incurable defect in the case. However, '[r]ules of pleading are conveniences to promote justice and not to impede or warp it. We do not question the rule that all allegations of fact in a verified complaint, which are subsequently omitted or contradicted, are still binding on the complainant. The rule is valid and useful, but it does not exist in a vacuum and cannot be mechanically applied. It is a good rule to defeat abuses of the privilege to amend and to discourage sham and untruthful pleadings. It is not a rule, however, which is intended to prevent honest complainants from correcting erroneous allegations of generic terms which may have legal implications but which are also loosely used by laymen or to prevent the correction of ambiguous statements of fact.' " (Contreras v. Blue Cross of California (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 945, 950, 245 Cal.Rptr. 258.)
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.