![]() Since a particular is not instantiated by another thing, it is sometimes said to exist ‘in itself’, whereas a universal exists ‘in’ something else. Universals both ‘have’ (properties and relations) and are ‘had’ particulars ‘have’ but are not ‘had’. What distinguishes particulars is the fact that, while a particular instantiates properties and relations, nothing instantiates a particular. By itself, however, this does not distinguish particulars from universals since universals, too, are naturally thought to have properties and to stand in relations. Particulars are things which have properties and which stand in relations – particulars ‘instantiate’ properties and relations. ![]() On the other hand, some think that there are properties which could not possibly be manifested in two different places at the same time, and yet which nonetheless are universals: think, for instance, of the divine property of absolute perfection, or of the conjunction of all intrinsic properties of a Leibnizian monad (or possible world) or of Judas’ property of simply being Judas. On the one hand, some think it is possible, at least in principle, for a magician, or Pythagoras, or a time traveller, or a subatomic particle to be in two places at once, even though each is a particular. This way of distinguishing between particulars and universals may help us to focus on apt paradigm cases of each, but arguably this does not get us to the heart of the matter. It is sometimes taken as a distinctive feature of particulars that they cannot be in more than one place at a time, whereas universals are capable of being wholly present in more than one place at a given time: if you have a white thing here and a white thing there, then you have two particulars but only one property. Often the term ‘individuals’ is used interchangeably with ‘particulars’, though some restrict the term ‘individuals’ to those particulars whose existence has more than momentary duration. ![]() If a bill of particulars does not explain enough of the case to support the lawsuit, then the other party might be able to file a motion to dismiss the claim.Particulars are to be understood by contrasting them with universals, that term being used to comprise both properties and relations. Once you know what the other side is trying to prove to the judge, you can better prepare for depositions or trial. This way, the parties can start to understand what the other side’s “theory of the case” will be – in other words, what the party is trying to prove to the judge so that s/he can get the outcome and the relief s/he is looking for. If there is a complaint filed by one party and a counter-complaint filed by the other party, both parties may request a bill of particulars against each other. ![]() ![]() Usually, requests for bill of particulars are sent out before depositions happen, and before other forms of discovery, so that the other party has a more complete sense of the allegations against him/her. In other words, a bill of particulars is a discovery tool that can be used by a respondent to figure out what the other party is claiming happened. The respondent in a lawsuit might request a bill of particulars if the complaint has general allegations without getting into the specific details that would be necessary for the respondent to properly defend him/herself in the case. A bill of particulars is a written document in which a party has to explain the allegations in his/her complaint, or petition, in more detail. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |