(3) Since one of the main objectives of Article 8(b) is to eliminate the general refusal, except in the rare cases where the President intends to rebut in good faith all the allegations contained in the previous procedural act, the concretisation of specific situations requiring a specific objection tends to weaken the emphasis on that objective. The amendment is embodied in the legislative terms “material facts” and “cause of action”. Under previous law, a pleading had to contain specific facts rather than general conclusions, Becker v. Calnan, 313 Mass. 625, 630, 48 N.E.2d 668, 671 (1943), and the essential claims had to set out the essential elements of an accepted plea. Brighams Cafe Inc. v. Price Bros. Co., 334 Mass. 708, 137 N.E. 923 (1957). The difference between the philosophy of Rule 8 and the previous practice of Massachusetts in pleading is illustrated by a comparison of the requirement of construction of “substantive justice” of Rule 8(f) with G.L.c.
231, § 38: “The allegations and denials of each party shall be interpreted by the court so as to ensure, to the extent possible, substantial accuracy and certainty. (c) acceptance by reference; Exhibitions. A statement in a pleading may be accepted by reference elsewhere in the same pleading or in another pleading or application. A copy of a written document, which is evidence of a pleading, is part of the plea for all purposes. In making a positive defense, anyone may be compelled to bear the burden of production and persuasion, the defendant must give the plaintiff only “fair notice,” 2A Moore, Federal Practice §8.27 . This is, of course, the natural consequence of the dismissal theory underlying the Regulation in general and Article 8(a) in particular. Article 8 (a) (1) contains no reference to facts or means. According to this rule, the action should not be dismissed if a plaintiff fairly informs the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff`s claim and the grounds on which it relies because it does so through so-called “legal submissions”. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45, 78, pp. 99, 101, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).
However, some real estate laws may require a unique specificity. See G.L. v. 185, §§ 28, 29; c. 237, § 3; c. 240, § 1. Article 8 reflects the view that the main function of pleadings is not to formulate the precise issues of the main proceedings, but rather to adequately communicate the submissions and defences of the parties. Specific pleadings sometimes reveal the absence of a viable plaintiff cause or the absence of a valid defense of the defendant. Most often, however, individual pleadings only lead to a waste of time and work, as the alleged defects are questions of form, which are then remedied by amendment. In occasional cases where the claimant does not have a legitimate claim, the procedure may nevertheless be avoided by discovery and either a motion to dismiss a claim for failure to indicate a claim for which a remedy may be granted, or an application for summary judgment (rule 56). Note to subparagraph (b).
1. This rule replaces the methods of pleading prescribed in 19 U.S.C. § 508 (persons who make seizures, ask a general question, and provide special questions); U.S.C. Title 35, [formerly] §§40d (generally indicating that a statement in the extended patent application is not true), 69 [now 282] (pleadings and evidence in infringement actions) and similar laws. Under the old Massachusetts law, a plaintiff could not only combine legal and equitable claims into a single pleading, but also could not join causes of action unless they arose in the same manner (G.L. v. 231, § 1A) or belonged to the same chamber (G.L. v.
231, § 7 fifth and sixth); Twombly v. Monroe, 136 Mass. 464 (1884); Vigoda v. Barton, 338 Mass. 302, 155 N.E.2d 409 (1959). In the practice of fairness, a bill would be reprehensible if separate and distinct errors, each depending on its own facts, were combined into a single bill. Coughlin v. Coughlin, 312 Mass.
452, 456, 45 N.E.2d 388, 391 (1942). The wording of Rule 8 has been amended as part of the general reorganization of the Civil Code to make it easier to understand and to make the style and terminology consistent across the rules. These changes are only stylistically planned. (1) General. In responding to a pleading, a party must acknowledge any avoidance or positive defense, including: (2) abuse of language. If a party mistakenly names a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court must, if required by court, treat the pleading as if it had been properly named and may set conditions for doing so. A Party shall briefly and clearly set out its defence against such a claim and admit or deny the derogations invoked by the opposing Party. If he does not have sufficient knowledge or information to form a conviction about the truth of aversion, he must explain it, and this has the effect of denial. The refusal must be proportional to the content of the refusals. If a litigant intends in good faith to deny only part or limitation of an avoidance, he must specify as much as is true and essential, and deny only the rest. Unless the officer intends to refute in good faith all the allegations contained in the preceding pleading, he may reject his refusal as a specific refusal of deviations or designated paragraphs, or as a general refusal other than deviations or paragraphs that he expressly admits; However, if he intends to contest all their allegations, he may do so by general rejection, subject to the obligations laid down in Article 11. The signature of an instrument contained in a written communication shall be deemed admissible unless a party expressly disputes its authenticity.
An assertion in a pleading that a place is a public highway is deemed admissible unless a party expressly denies such an assertion. Rule 8(f) modifies the earlier Massachusetts rule that briefs must be interpreted most strictly against the party who wrote them. Hawes v. Ryder, 100 Mass. 216, 218 (1868). Hawes v. Ryder Assertions in a procedural document for which a plea is required, with the exception of those relating to the amount of damages, are allowed if this is not contested in the admissible procedural document. Derogations from a procedural act in respect of which no admissible objection is required or admissible shall be deemed to have been rejected or avoided. (b) paragraphs; Separate statements. A party must set out its claims or defences in numbered paragraphs, each limited as far as possible to a single set of circumstances. A subsequent procedural document may refer numerically to a paragraph of an earlier procedural document. If it promotes clarity, any claim based on a separate transaction or event – and any defence other than a refusal – must be set out in a separate indictment or defence.
2. A party may file two or more statements of defence, alternately or hypothetically, either on one count or defence or on separate charges or defences. If two or more observations are submitted in the alternative and one of them, if made independently, would suffice, the argument is not insufficient because one or more of the subsidiary observations are inadequate. A party may also bring as many separate claims or defences as it has done, regardless of consistency and whether they are based on legal or equitable grounds. Any declaration shall be subject to the obligations laid down in Rule 11.