In many legal confrontations you're best not to put all your cards on the table up front.
Apart from anything else, it creates information asymmetry - your opponent certainly won't tip their hand to you until they feel the time is right.
And you leave yourself open to bluffing. If you blab everything, and then the other side steps it up and comes after you harder, you'll be left wondering - they know everything, but they're doubling down - am I missing something? Gee, they must have a stronger case than I thought.
This was basically my line of thinking when I filed. I felt I had good evidence, and I felt it all attacked very specific clauses in the contract. I didn't want to give them an opportunity to plan against it.
In hindsight, it may not have mattered. After all, I was going up against lawyers. thathndude, who has the top comment and is a lawyer, has a different perspective.
Yeah I agree with this. I think it’s important to put the necessary facts on the table, along with your claim or gambit, but to hold back on the detail until you work out which way the wind is blowing.
I’ve had people tell me outright lies, which puts them in a difficult negotiating position when you can prove it. But the lies would not have been told (and my negotiating position not strengthened) if all the evidence was laid out up front.
Hiding information from an adversary has few downsides, as long as you keep your goals clear. You can always provide more information later. But you can never take information back.
Apart from anything else, it creates information asymmetry - your opponent certainly won't tip their hand to you until they feel the time is right.
And you leave yourself open to bluffing. If you blab everything, and then the other side steps it up and comes after you harder, you'll be left wondering - they know everything, but they're doubling down - am I missing something? Gee, they must have a stronger case than I thought.