Sometimes the Dispute Is Not About the Truth

Sometimes the Dispute Is Not About the Truth

In some cases, the parties agree on most of the facts, yet differ fundamentally on the outcome.

The amount may in fact have been paid, the contract signed, and the act carried out; but the most important question is not always:

Did it happen?

Rather:

What is its legal effect?

Proof that an amount was paid does not necessarily mean that it is a debt that must be repaid. Likewise, proof that money was delivered does not, by itself, determine the basis of entitlement to it or its legal nature.

This is where the importance of legal characterization becomes clear, because the same fact may produce different consequences depending on the source of the obligation, the capacity of the parties, and the legal relationship within which it occurred.

Accordingly, properly understanding a case does not mean merely gathering its evidence; it also means identifying which legal question we should ask the court to answer.

Sometimes we do not lose a case because the facts are against us, but because we characterized the facts incorrectly.

— Omar Al-Baghdadi