COMPROMISE - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

COMPROMISEAuthored

The Law Mind • 1169 words

Definition

A compromise is a mutual agreement between disputing parties to resolve their differences by reciprocal concession, without requiring a final adjudication of who is legally right. Each party surrenders something — a claim, a right, or a demand — in exchange for the other party doing the same. The resolution replaces the uncertainty of litigation with a negotiated outcome both sides find preferable to the risk of losing outright.

Compromise operates in at least two distinct legal contexts:

1. General civil compromise. An out-of-court or in-court settlement of a dispute, claim, or lawsuit. The parties agree to adjusted terms rather than litigating to judgment. Compromises are strongly favored in law; courts treat them as valid contracts enforceable on ordinary contract principles, provided there is genuine consideration — typically the mutual surrender of contested claims.

2. Offer of compromise (evidentiary context). A statement, offer, or payment made specifically in the context of attempting to resolve a dispute. The law treats such offers as inadmissible to prove liability in most jurisdictions, on the policy ground that encouraging settlement requires protecting parties from having their concessions used against them at trial.

Common Language

Modern common usage (Wiktionary): The settlement of differences by mutual concessions; also, in ordinary speech, a concession that endangers reputation or integrity ("a compromise of one's principles"), and in computing, an unauthorized breach of a system.

Historical common usage (Webster's 1913): Primarily, a settlement reached by mutual concession; secondarily (marked obsolete), a mutual agreement to submit disputes to arbitration.

The gap matters for researchers: in common usage, "compromise" carries a mildly negative connotation — something yielded reluctantly, often to one's detriment. In law, compromise is a term of approval. Courts treat compromise agreements as socially beneficial, legally enforceable, and presumptively valid. The common pejorative sense has no foothold in legal doctrine.

Common Confusion

Compromise vs. accord and satisfaction. Both resolve disputed obligations by agreement. The distinction is structural: an accord is the agreement to accept substitute performance; satisfaction is the actual performance of that agreement. A compromise, by contrast, resolves the underlying dispute itself, not merely the mode of performance. In practice, many settlements involve elements of both, and historical sources sometimes use the terms interchangeably — a trap in older cases and treatises.

Compromise vs. release. A release extinguishes a claim unilaterally, often for consideration, without requiring the releasing party to hold any counterclaim. A compromise presupposes mutual concession from both sides. Where only one party holds a viable claim, what appears to be a compromise may be legally a release with payment.

Why It Matters in Research

The evidentiary treatment of compromise offers is the most consequential research frontier. Federal Rule of Evidence 408 and its state analogs exclude evidence of compromise offers to prove liability or damages, but the rule has significant exceptions — the offer may be admissible for other purposes, such as showing bias, negating a contention of undue delay, or proving obstruction. Researchers using pre-rules sources (pre-1975 federal practice, or older state cases) will encounter a more fragmented and jurisdiction-specific body of law on this point. The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia entry on Rule 408 maps the modern framework and its departure from common-law antecedents.

In the tax context, "offer in compromise" is a term of art with a fully developed statutory and regulatory structure, distinct from general civil compromise doctrine. Researchers conflating the two will find the wrong body of authority. The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia entry treats this separately.

Historically, the term carried a narrower meaning: submission to arbitration. Burrill notes that the arbitration sense was "formerly the ordinary meaning of the term," derived from the Roman compromissum. By the nineteenth century, the broader settlement sense had largely displaced this. Researchers working with pre-nineteenth-century materials — particularly equity records, civil law jurisdictions, or Louisiana materials — should be alert to the arbitral meaning.

The enforceability of compromise agreements against public entities and minors is an area where general doctrine breaks down. Many jurisdictions require court approval for compromises on behalf of minors or incompetents, and governmental bodies often face statutory restrictions on their authority to compromise claims. These limitations appear inconsistently in the historical dictionaries and require separate verification against current law.

Historical Dictionary Support

The five source dictionaries converge on the core definition — mutual concession to end a dispute — but reflect different emphases and different moments in the term's evolution.

Burrill is the most historically precise, tracking the shift from the Roman compromissum (agreement to arbitrate) through the broader modern sense. No other source in the set acknowledges this evolution as explicitly, making Burrill uniquely useful for early-source research.

Bouvier adds the Louisiana Civil Code definition and the observation that a compromise has "between the interested parties, a force equal to the authority of a thing adjudicated" — a civil-law principle reflecting the res judicata-like effect a compromise can carry. This framing is absent from the common-law dictionaries and matters when working in mixed-jurisdiction materials.

Anderson's supplies the most practically useful formulation for evidentiary purposes: "An 'offer' to do something by way of compromise of a controversy, as, to pay a sum of money, to allow a certain p[ercentage] . . ." — pointing directly toward the offer-of-compromise rule, though Anderson does not develop the evidentiary doctrine at length.

Both Black's editions agree substantially, adding the "uncertainty as to facts or law" framing that remains the modern touchstone: a compromise is appropriate precisely because neither party knows how a tribunal would resolve the matter. This uncertainty is not merely descriptive — it is sometimes treated as a necessary element, meaning a party who knows with certainty that a claim is worthless cannot form a valid compromise by feigning doubt.

What the historical sources collectively miss: the modern regulatory framework around compromise in specific contexts (tax offers, class action settlements requiring court approval, bankruptcy-supervised settlements), and the fully codified evidentiary exclusion. Researchers should treat these dictionaries as establishing baseline common-law doctrine only.

Jurisdictional Note

Louisiana treats compromise as a nominate contract governed by the Civil Code, with specific formal requirements and a res judicata effect that differs in degree from most common-law treatments. Federal practice introduces distinct procedural requirements for compromises involving class actions (Rule 23 approval) and bankruptcy estates. In several states, governmental entities are restricted by statute from compromising certain categories of claims without legislative or administrative authorization.

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

Offers in Compromise (The Law Mind Tax Encyclopedia) — tax_152
Compromise Offers and Negotiations — Rule 408 (The Law Mind Civil Procedure & Evidence Encyclopedia) — civpro_147

COMPROMISEmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

An arrangement ar- rived at, either in court or out of court, for settling a dispute upon what appears to the parties to be equitable terms, having regard to the uncertainty they are in regarding the facts, or the law and the facts together. Brown. An agreement between two or more persons, who, for preventing or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their difficulties by mutual consent in the manner which they agree on, and which every one of them prefers to the hope of gaining, balanced by the danger of losing. 4 La. 456. In the civil law. An agreement where- by two or more persons mutually bind them- selves to refer their legal dispute to the de- cision of a designated third person, who is terme "umpire" or "arbitrator." Dig. 4, 8; Mackeld. Rom. Law, § 471.

COMPROMISEmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

An agreement be- tween two or more persons, who, for pro- moting or putting an end to a lawsuit, adjust their differences by mutual consent, in the manner which they agree on, and which any one of them prefers to the hope of gaining balanced by the danger of losing. 105 U. S. 610, quoting the code of Louisiana, art. 3071. It has between the interested parties, a force equal to the authority of a thing adjudged. Id., art. 3075. Such settlements are sustained at law; Poll. Contr. 180; 2 Strobh. Eq. 258; 2 Mich. 145; 1 Watts 216; 2 Pa. 531; and are highly favored; 6 Munf. 406; 1 Bibb 168; 2 id. 413; 4 Hawks 178; 6 Watts 321; 14 Conn. 12; 4 Metc. Mass. 270; 62 Mich. 262. See, also, 21 E. L. & Eq. 199; 6 Т. В. Monr. 91; 2 Rand. Va. 442; 5 Watts 259; 143 Pa. 374. The amount in question must, it seems, be uncertain; 2 B. & Ad. 889; 1 Ad. & E. 106. And see 5 Pet. 114; 21 Pa. 237: 20 Mo. 102; 13 Pick. 284; 6 Bingh. N. C. 62; 3 M. & W. 648; 1 Bouvier, Inst. 798. The compromise of a doubtful or disputed claim is a sufficient considera- tion to uphold an assumpsit; 18 N. Y. Supp. 858. See 49 Fed. Rep. 715. Where a debtor tenders part of a dis- puted claim to the creditor in full satisfac- tion, if the latter accepts the tender, he is bound by the terms thereof 46 Mo. App. 624. An offer of settlement by plaintiff, but not accepted by defendant, does not bind either party: 29 Fla. 238. There can be no compromse of a criminal charge; 1 Chit. Pr. 17. An offer to pay money by way of com- promise is not evidence of debt, since, as was said by Lord Mansfield, "it must be permitted to men to buy their peace' without prejudice to them, if the offer did not succeed; and such offers are made to stop litigation without regard to the ques- tion whether anything, or what, is due." If the terms "buy their peace" are attended to, they will resolve all doubts on this head of evi- dence; Bull. N. P., 7th ed. (1817) 236; and the author adds an example:- If A sue B for one hun- dred pounds, and B offer to pay him twenty pounds, it shall not be received in evidence, for this neither admits nor ascertains any debt, and is no more than saying he would give twenty pounds to get rid of the action. But if an account consist of ten ar- ticles, and B adınits that a particular one is due, it is good evidence for so much. In one of the oldest cases on the subject, Lord Kenyon declared at nisi prius: Evidence of con cessions made for the purpose of settling matters in dispute I shall never admit; " 3 Esp. 118; but evi- dence was admitted that after the action was brought the defendant called upon the plaintiff and said he was sorry that the thing had happened, and offered two hundred pounds in settlement, which was not accepted; 3 Stark. N. P. 128; and in other cases evidence of offers of compromise made, but not expressed to be without prejudice, wer held to be admissible: 1 M. & W. 446; id. 447, n.; apparently in opposition to the rule laid down by Lord Mansfield and Lord Kenyon above referred to. It may, however, be considered settled that letters or admissions containing the expression in substance that they are to be without prejudice will not be admitted in evidence; 4 C. & P. 462; L. R. 6 Ch. 827; 3 Sc. N. R. 741. in the last case the rule is put definitely on the ground of public policy by Tindal, C. J., who said:- "It is of great consequence that parties should be unfettered by correspondence entered into upon the express understanding that it is to be without prejudice," and he also declared "that where used in the letter containing the offer, the words 'with- out prejudice' must cover the whole correspond- ence," and this rule has been followed and it was held that not only the letter bearing the words "without prejudice," but also the answer thereto, which was not so guarded, was inadmissible in evi- dence; and to the same effect is L. R. 10 Ch. 264. It is the recognized rule in the United States that admissions made in treating for an adjustment can- not be given in given in evidence; 83 Mo. 323; 117 Mass. 55; 13 Ga. 406; 40 N. Y. Sup. Ct. 8; and in Canada; Ont. 584; 11 id. 442. Verbal offers of compromise of a claim made by a defendant's solicitor are also protected and cannot be given in evidence against his client; 2 C. & Κ. 24; 6 С. Р. 437. An account rendered by the defendant to the plaintiff, showing a balance in the plaintiff's favor, accompanied by a letter proposing an arrangement and stating that the letter and account were without prejudice was held to be inadmissible as evidence; 6 C. P. 437. The principle of the exclusion of such ad- missions, whether verbal or documentary, therefore, seems to rest on the fact that there is some matter in controversy or some claim by one person against the other for the settlement or adjustment of which the communication is made, and that in fur- therance of the maxim, Interest respublicæ ut sit finis litium," it is for the public good that communi- cations having that end in view should no

COMPROMISEmain

Anderson's Dictionary of Law • 1890

An agreement in settlement of a controverted matter. The yielding of something by each of two parties.5 A mutual yielding of opposing claims; the surrender of some right or claimed right in consideration of a like surrender of some counter-claim.6 Compromises are highly favored in law. An "offer" to do something by way of compromise of a controversy, as, to pay a sum of money, to allow a certain price, to deliver certain property, and like offers, made to avoid litigation, is not receivable in evidence against the maker as an admission. If the offer is plainly for a compromise, the rule is to presume it to have been made without prejudiceit is open to explanation. But an admission made during or in consequence of the offer is receivable." To admit evidence of an offer to compromise litigation would discourage the amicable settlement of disputes. When the object is to buy peace, an offer will be excluded. See PREJUDICE, Without. If the right surrendered is of doubtful validity, its surrender may be a valuable consideration for the promise.. 1 [Haskins v. Newcomb, 2 Johns. *408 (1807), Kent, Chief Justice. 2 [4 Bl. Com. 136. See Smith, Contr. 226. 34 Bl. Com. 133. L. com-promittere, to mutually promise; to arbitrate. • Bellows v. Sowles, 55 Vt. 399 (1883). • Gregg v. Wethersfield, 55 Vt. 387 (1883); ib. 397; 10 Neb. 360; 2 Wis. *6. West v. Smith, 101 U. S. 273 (1879), cases; Home Ins. Co. v. Baltimore Warehouse Co., 93 id. 548 (1876); 1 Pet. 222; 16 Op. Att-Gen. 250; 87 Ind. 465; 4 La. 456; 50 Md. 45; 44 N. J. L. 174; 1 Greenl. Ev. § 192; 2 Whart. Εν. § 1090. * International, &c. R. Co. v. Ragsdale, 67 Tex. 27

COMPROMISEn.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

A mutual agreement to refer matters in dispute to the decision of arbitrators. [Obs.] Burrill. A settlement by arbitration or by mutual consent reached by concession on both sides; a reciprocal abatement of extreme demands or rights, resulting in an agreement. But basely yielded upon compromise That which his noble ancestors achieved with blows. Shak. All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter. Burke. An abhorrence of concession and compromise is a never failing characteristic of religious factions. Hallam. A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender; as, a compromise of character or right. I was determined not to accept any fine speeches, to the compromise of that sex the belonging to which was, after all, my strongest claim and title to them. Lamb.

COMPROMISEv.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

To bind by mutual agreement; to agree. [Obs.] Laban and himself were compromised That all the eanlings which were streaked and pied Should fall as Jacob's hire. Shak. To adjust and settle by mutual concessions; to compound. The controversy may easily be compromised. Fuller. To pledge by some act or declaration; to endanger the life, reputation, etc., of, by some act which can not be recalled; to expose to suspicion. To pardon all who had been compromised in the late disturbances. Motley.

COMPROMISEv.

Websters Unabridged Dictionary (1913) • 1913

To agree; to accord. [Obs.] To make concession for concilation and peace.

compromisenoun

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

Wiktionary contributors • CC BY-SA 4.0 • via Kaikki
Extracted and formatted for display by Law Mind. Source link opens the current Wiktionary page and its contributor history; it is not a frozen copy of this extract.

The settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions. | A committal to something derogatory or objectionable; a prejudicial concession; a surrender. | A breach of a computer or network's rules such that an unauthorized disclosure or loss of sensitive information may have occurred, or the unauthorized disclosure or loss itself.

compromiseverb

Wiktionary (English) • 2026

To bind by mutual agreement. | To adjust and settle by mutual concessions; to compound. | To find a way between extremes. | To pledge by some act or declaration; to endanger the life, reputation, etc., of, by some act which can not be recalled; to expose to suspicion. | To cause impairment of. | To breach (a security system).

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In