Legal Question in Business Law in California

Re: Proof of words

What type of lawsuit is it?

You can view my bio at http://www.schinner.com/html/the_schinner_law_group_-_d__al.html

Re: Proof of words

You simply give the testimony, anlong with anything that you can do to support your side (such as partial performance of an agreement).

Without a writing, it will come down to whomever the judge believes.

Re: Proof of words

I assume you are in small claims or defending or suing by yourself without and attorney. If the other person is a party to the litigation, what the said is admissible and is not hearsay which is what you might be thinking of. If the person is not a party, then you need find another exception to the hearsay rule or subpena the person to testify as to what one person said to another.

In either event, the way you prove what was said is by giving oral testimony as to what was said.

Bob

www.beauchampfirm.com

Re: Proof of words

THIS IS NOT MEANT AS SPECIFIC LEGAL ADVICE CONSULT AN ATTORNEY

generally its your word against theirs -- it would be helpful to show unusual conduct on your part that corroborates your version of the story (i.e. he says "paint my house for $500" you start painting his house and now he denies promising to pay for it, your version of the story is more credible because you would not paint his house without his promise to pay you $500)

Re: Proof of words

There are two separate problems here.

The first is admissibility. In court, as a general rule a witness cannot testify about what someone else said, because such testimony is "hearsay." The rule is that the actual speaker of the words should be in court, not just someone who heard the words. However, there are many exceptions to the hearsay rule, and you pretty much need to have studied law to know what they are and when they are available. Many cases are won or lost on the basis of an attorney's knowledge of the fine points of the hearsay rule. The small-claims statutes do not formally suspend the hearsay rule, but under the simplified procedure there, small-claims judges have wide latitude to admit otherwise inadmissible hearsay if they think it will lead to the truth.

Your other problem is credibility. The judge may admit all the oral 'he said she said' statements, but if the speakers aren't actually on the witness stand in person, under oath, the statements may be given little weight by the judge, who will give greater weight to written evidence and/or direct testimony from eyewitnesses or the actual speakers.

Judges can and often do decide civil matters on the weight of the evidence--whichever side is slightly more believeable than the other will win. It is not necessary for the winner to 'prove' his or her position with nearly the degree of certainty required to convict in criminal court.