During a breach of contract trial, the plaintiff introduces a portion of an email exchange where the defendant states, 'I don't think I can honor the contract.' The defendant objects, claiming the entire email chain, which includes context showing the defendant was negotiating a potential modification, should be admitted. Should the court admit the entire email chain?
Yes, because the court is generally required to admit the entirety of a document if part is introduced.
No, because the omitted portions of the communication are inadmissible unless they are independently relevant.
Yes, because the completeness rule allows relevant portions of a document to be admitted to avoid misleading the jury.
No, because the plaintiff has the option to present the remainder of the document.
Under the completeness rule, when one party introduces a portion of a written or recorded statement, the opposing party may compel the admission of other parts if needed to prevent the jury from being misled or to ensure fairness. In this case, the defendant is entitled to have the entire email chain admitted if it provides necessary context to the statement introduced by the plaintiff. The other answers are incorrect because they either misstate the scope of the rule or rely on unsupported assumptions about admissibility or procedural requirements.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the completeness rule in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why is context important in legal communications?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the implications of not allowing the full email chain to be admitted?