What is controverting the evidence?

Controverting the evidence is when a party that is involved in a lawsuit or contract dispute attempts to contradict the evidence that has been presented. This is done by providing their own evidence that refutes what was previously presented. For example, if a party presents a witness testifying that an event occurred in a certain way, the other party may attempt to controvert the evidence by presenting their own witness that testifies the event occurred differently. In Kentucky, the rules of evidence within contract law can be found in the Kentucky Rules of Evidence. These rules regulate the admission of evidence presented by the parties in a contract dispute. In order for a party to controvert the evidence presented, they must provide evidence that is legally admissible. This means the evidence must not be hearsay and must be relevant and related to the contract dispute. Furthermore, the evidence must be material to the dispute, meaning it must be connected to the outcome of the dispute. The goal of controverting the evidence in a contract dispute is to provide a counter-argument to demonstrate why the opposing party’s evidence should not be considered valid. This can be done through presenting evidence that refutes the statements made by the opposing party. It is important for parties involved in a contract dispute to thoroughly review their opponent’s evidence to identify any evidence that could be controverted in court.

Related FAQs

What is a contract?
What is a contract of adhesion?
What is a joint venture agreement?
What is a material breach of contract?
What is the effect of an anticipatory breach?
What is a breach of the implied covenant of good faith?
What is a contract of indemnity?
What is a material alteration of a contract?
What is the principle of non-derogation of contracts?
What is the effect of a breach of contract?

What is controverting the evidence?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts