(1) a short and also simple statement of the grounds for the court"s jurisdiction, unless the court currently has actually jurisdiction and the claim requirements no brand-new jurisdictional support;

(2) a brief and ordinary statement of the case mirroring that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may encompass relief in the different or different types of relief.

You are watching: Which statement best represents a counterclaim to this claim?

(b) Defenses; Adobjectives and also Denials.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party must:

(A) state in short and plain terms its defenses to each case asserted versus it; and

(B) admit or deny the allegations asserted versus it by an opposing party.

(2) Denials—Responding to the Substance. A denial have to reasonably respond to the substance of the allegation.

(3) General and also Specific Denials. A party that inhas a tendency in great faith to deny all the allegations of a pleading—including the jurisdictional grounds—may carry out so by a basic denial. A party that does not intfinish to deny all the allegations must either especially deny designated allegations or mostly deny all except those specifically admitted.

(4) Denying Part of an Allegation. A party that inhas a tendency in good confidence to deny just part of an allegation need to admit the part that is true and deny the rest.

(5) Lacking Knowledge or Indevelopment. A party that lacks expertise or indevelopment enough to develop a belief around the fact of an allegation have to so state, and also the statement has actually the effect of a denial.

(6) Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted if a responsive pleading is required and also the allegation is not denied. If a responsive pleading is not required, an allegation is taken into consideration denied or avoided.

(c) Affirmative Defenses.

(1) In General. In responding to a pleading, a party should affirmatively state any type of avoidance or affirmative defense, including:

• accord and satisfaction;

• arbitration and also award;

• assumption of risk;

• contributory negligence;

• duress;

• estoppel;

• faiattract of consideration;

• fraud;

• illegality;

• injury by fellow servant;

• laches;

• license;

• payment;

• release;

• res judicata;

• statute of frauds;

• statute of limitations; and

• waiver.

(2) Mistaken Desigcountry. If a party erroneously designates a defense as a counterclaim, or a counterinsurance claim as a defense, the court have to, if justice needs, treat the pleading as though it were properly designated, and might impose terms for doing so.

(d) Pleading to Be Concise and Direct; Alteraboriginal Statements; Inconsistency.

(1) In General. Each allegation must be straightforward, concise, and straight. No technical develop is compelled.

(2) Alternative Statements of a Claim or Defense. A party might set out 2 or even more statements of a case or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in a single count or defense or in separate ones. If a party provides alternative statements, the pleading is sufficient if any type of one of them is adequate.

(3) Inconsistent Clintends or Defenses. A party might state as many kind of sepaprice claims or defenses as it has, regardmuch less of consistency.

(e) Construing Pleadings. Pleadings have to be taken so regarding do justice.

Notes

(As amfinished Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 30, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007; Apr. 28, 2010, eff. Dec. 1, 2010.)

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1937

Keep in mind to Subdivision (a). See Equity Rules 25 (Bill of Complaint—Contents), and also 30 (Answer—Contents—Counterclaim). Compare 2 Ind.Stat.Ann. (Burns, 1933) §§2–1004, 2–1015; 2 Ohio Gen.Code Ann. (Page, 1926) §§11305, 11314; Utah Rev.Stat.Ann. (1933), §§104–7–2, 104–9–1.

See Rule 19(c) for the need of a statement in a insurance claim for relief of the names of persons that ought to be parties and also the reason for their omission.

See Rule 23(b) for particular requirements as to the complaint in a second action by shareholders.

Keep in mind to Subdivision (b). 1. This rule supersedes the approaches of pleading prescribed in U.S.C., Title 19, §508 (Persons making seizures pleading general worry and giving distinct matter); U.S.C., Title 35, §§40d (Providing under general worry, upon notice, that a statement in application for an extensive patent is not true), 69 (Pleading and proof in actions for infringement) and equivalent statutes.

2. This ascendancy is, in part, Equity Rule 30 (Answer—Contents—Counterclaim), via the issue on denials greatly from the Connectireduced practice. See Conn.Practice Book (1934) §§107, 108, and also 122; Conn.Gen.Stat. (1930) §§5508–5514. Compare the English exercise, English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r.r. 17–20.

Keep in mind to Subdepartment (c). This adheres to dramatically English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r. 15 and also N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §242, via “surprise” omitted in this dominion.

Note to Subdivision (d). The first sentence is equivalent to Equity Rule 30 (Answer—Contents—Counterclaim). For the second sentence view Equity Rule 31 (Reply—When Required—When Cause at Issue). This is comparable to English Rules Under the Judicature Act (The Annual Practice, 1937) O. 19, r.r. 13, 18; and to the exercise in the States.

Keep in mind to Subdivision (e). This preeminence is an elaboration upon Equity Rule 30 (Answer—Contents—Counterclaim), plus a statement of the actual exercise under some codes. Compare likewise Equity Rule 18 (Pleadings—Technical Forms Abrogated). See Clark, Code Pleading (1928), pp. 171–4, 432–5; Hankin, Alterindigenous and also Hypothetical Pleading (1924), 33 Yale L.J. 365.

Note to Subdivision (f). A provision of like import is of frequent occurrence in the codes. Ill.Rev.Stat. (1937) ch. 110, §157(3); 2 Minn.Stat. (Makid, 1927) §9266; N.Y.C.P.A. (1937) §275; 2 N.D.Comp.nlinux.orgs Ann. (1913) §7458.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1966 Amendment

The adjust right here is regular with the wide functions of marriage.

Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1987 Amendment

The amendments are technological. No substantive adjust is intended.

Committee Notes on Rules—2007 Amendment

The language of Rule 8 has been amfinished as component of the basic restyling of the Civil Rules to make them more easily understood and to make style and also terminology regular throughout the rules. These alters are intfinished to be stylistic just.

The previous Rule 8(b) and also 8(e) cross-references to Rule 11 are deleted as redundant. Rule 11 applies by its very own terms. The pressure and also application of Rule 11 are not diminished by the deletion.

Former Rule 8(b) required a pleader denying part of an averment to “specify so much of it as is true and also material and * * * deny only the remainder.” “nd material” is deleted to prevent the implication that it is correct to deny something that the pleader believes to be true however not material.

Deletion of previous Rule 8(e)(2)"s “whether based on legal, equitable, or maritime grounds” shows the parallel deletions in Rule 1 and also in other places. Merger is now effectively achieved.

Changes Made After Publication and also Comment. See Note to Rule 1, supra.

Committee Notes on Rules—2010 Amendment

Subdepartment (c)(1). ischarge in bankruptcy” is deleted from the list of affirmative defenses. Under 11 U.S.C. § 524(a)(1) and also (2) a discharge voids a judgment to the degree that it determines an individual licapability of the debtor with respect to a discharged debt. The discharge also operates as an injunction against start or continuation of an activity to collect, recover, or offset a discharged debt. For these reasons it is confmaking use of to describe discharge as an affirmative defense. But § 524(a) applies just to a case that was actually discharged. Several categories of debt collection out in 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) are excepted from discharge. The issue whether a case was excepted from discharge may be identified either in the court that entered the discharge or — in many instances — in one more court through jurisdiction over the creditor’s insurance claim.

Changes Made After Publication and Comment.

No changes were made in the preeminence message.

See more:
In Determining Living Standards, Productivity Plays A Key Role

The Committee Note was revised to delete statements that were over-streamlined. New material was included to carry out a reminder of the indicates to recognize whether a debt was in fact discharged.