Opinions and assessments of the witness (that is, how the witness judged something, not the opinions of the witness)

As can be seen from the posts “Objection” and “Comment on the Objection Post”, the Court’s apparent question about the facts: “Were there other reasons for terminating the contract” is in fact a question about the conclusions and opinions of the witness about the witness’s observations without asking him about the content of the observations. It is therefore a very serious error on the part of the General Court in handling the evidence. There are two rules of evidence: (1) we ask the witness for facts (2) we do not ask for opinions and assessments.

But rule Ad 2 is misunderstood often. It only means that the witness must not be asked about his assessment of the opinions which ex post has, i.e. NOW during the hearing. It’s how he judged things when things happened, is an opinion, but it is also a so-called “mental fact”, which is relevant to clarify a number of important issues e.g.: (a) the party’s motives (b) the due diligence of the party in: (i) collecting information, evaluating and taking action, and (ii) the use by the party of information, assessments and opinions of its employees on the basis of which the party has taken action (here: hastily terminated the contract to its detriment the day after the expiry of the warranty period). and this agreement was a source of millions of revenues for the party). Is it not the same thing anymore?