I have a claim against my ex-landlord. I found it necessary to go to court. He said he blocked all communication with me and stopped replying to my messages about money and furniture he owes me. After the process started, he started messaging me again. He says he wants to meet up to discuss matters.
What is the benefit to settling? Why not just let the court decide now that the process has already started? In a sense, I want as much money as possible and he wants to give me as little possible. I don't see how we could both be happier with an arrangement made between ourselves than one made by the court.
Several times I tried to negotiate with the landlord and several times he did not honor his agreement. For the sake of this question let's assume the landlord is dishonest. Why would I trust him to honor his agreement to settle? Is the way it usually works we both sign a contract saying once the landlord pays me $x then I will cancel/withdraw all claims and not make them again? The key point being I received the money before cancelling the claims?
Lastly, I have other people willing to testify the landlord has done something similar to them. I had hoped it becomes apparent this is a scheme the landlord is repeating. From examples I've seen, some parties argue to the court "this is the same situation as x and you found y guilty in that case so you should come to the same conclusion here!" If I settled what would the affect be on an precedent established?