Legal Definitions - aider by subsequent pleading

Aider by subsequent pleading refers to a legal principle where a flaw or missing piece of information in one party's formal legal document (called a "pleading," such as a complaint) is unintentionally corrected or supplied by the opposing party's later legal document (the "subsequent pleading," such as an answer). Essentially, the opponent's response inadvertently "helps" or "cures" the initial defect by acknowledging, referring to, or admitting a fact that was missing or unclear in the first document.

• Contract Breach Scenario:

  Scenario: A small business, "InnovateTech," sues a supplier, "Global Parts Inc.," for breach of contract, claiming Global Parts delivered defective components. However, InnovateTech's initial complaint fails to explicitly state that the contract between them was in writing, which is sometimes a requirement for certain types of contracts to be enforceable.

  Aider by Subsequent Pleading: In its formal answer to the lawsuit, Global Parts Inc. states, "Defendant admits to entering into the written agreement dated January 15, 2023, with InnovateTech, but denies the components were defective."

  Explanation: Global Parts Inc.'s answer, by specifically referring to "the written agreement," inadvertently cures the defect in InnovateTech's original complaint, which omitted the detail that the contract was in writing. The court can now proceed with the understanding that a written contract exists, based on the defendant's own admission, even though the plaintiff initially failed to state it.

• Property Damage Scenario:

  Scenario: A homeowner, Mr. Henderson, files a lawsuit against a construction company for damaging his fence during a neighboring project. In his complaint, Mr. Henderson describes the damage and the company's actions but neglects to explicitly state that he owns the property where the fence is located, which is a fundamental requirement to sue for damage to property.

  Aider by Subsequent Pleading: The construction company, in its answer, responds by stating, "Defendant denies liability for damage to Mr. Henderson's fence, as our work was performed entirely within the adjacent property boundaries."

  Explanation: By referring to "Mr. Henderson's fence," the construction company's answer implicitly acknowledges Mr. Henderson's ownership of the fence and, by extension, the property it stands on. This admission from the opposing party cures the initial omission in Mr. Henderson's complaint regarding his property ownership, allowing the case to proceed without that specific defect.

• Loan Default Scenario:

  Scenario: A bank files a lawsuit against a borrower for defaulting on a personal loan. The bank's complaint correctly states the loan amount and that payments were missed, but it inadvertently omits the specific date on which the final payment was due, which is a crucial detail for calculating interest and penalties accurately.

  Aider by Subsequent Pleading: In the borrower's answer, they state, "I admit to receiving the loan, but I dispute the amount claimed, as I believe the final payment was due on December 31, 2023, not earlier."

  Explanation: The borrower's answer, while disputing the amount, explicitly provides the missing due date for the final payment. This statement from the opposing party cures the defect in the bank's original complaint by supplying the previously omitted material fact regarding the loan's maturity date, making the bank's claim more complete.