Sources used in this document:

Fairness can be different things to different set of peoples. The view of what constitutes fairness is more of a personal perception. The lawyer's role is to see that his client gets the deal that is satisfactory but need not necessarily be fair in common perception. The insistence is that the procedures that led to the end result were all followed fairly and there was no unfair means adopted in the hearings and negotiations. Thinkers are of the opinion that substantive fairness in contracts is simply pseudo-problems. Thus to the persons who think of fairness and not conducting and unconscionable bargain or having the negotiation done with proper procedures would be sustentative fairness. That the method of negotiation came with an improper strategy can be of no concern. If the procedures are followed to the letter, then there is no need to go into the contract's substantive fairness. In cases where a settlement is made out of court, the fairness must be assumed if the processes seem flawless and then the courts ought not to police the bargains to see that it is fair all round. (Buckley, 1990) Therefore the question of fairness must be seen from the light of the overall proceeding than the result and if the result is agreeable to parties the fairness of the verdict becomes a mere academic question.

3. Identify what concealment behaviors would be ethical and unethical in this negotiation

Settling a lawsuit is conducted in a totally different environment from the court. The judicial system which regulates the way the cases are conducted is absent and a degree of freedom is offered by the absence of a judicial scrutiny to settle matters out of court. Concealment, though maybe morally wrong need not be legally so. Long ago the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the vacation of a claim for personnel because the attorneys failed to disclose that the plaintiff, David Spaulding suffered aortic aneurysm due to the