> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://help.rytz.com.au/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Offers and negotiation

> The Settlement Planner's offers tracker — log every offer made and received, compare each to the analysed position, build the without-prejudice trail that supports your reasonableness in costs arguments.

import { CardGroup, Card, Note, Tip, Warning } from '@mintlify/components'

The Settlement Planner's **My Offers** tab is the platform's negotiation tracker. Every offer made or received gets logged with date, terms, status, and how it compares to the analysed Step 1–4 position. Over the life of the matter, the offers history becomes both a strategic record and the evidence for any future costs argument.

## Why an offer tracker

Three jobs:

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Strategic memory" icon="brain">
    What did you offer in March? What did they reject in April? What did each side counter with in June? Without a tracker, the thread of negotiation becomes fuzzy.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Reasonableness evidence" icon="scale-balanced">
    Under r10.05 of the Family Law Rules and the Calderbank line, offers a party reasonably made and the other party rejected can support a costs order against the rejecting party. The tracker records offers in a form that supports these arguments.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Negotiation discipline" icon="ruler">
    Logging each offer alongside the analysed position helps you avoid drifting away from your own analysis under negotiation pressure. The tracker shows you whether each offer is conservative, aligned, or aggressive against the framework.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Pattern detection" icon="eye">
    Their offer trajectory tells you something — if their offers move toward yours, you're closing; if they're static, the path may not be settlement.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Logging an offer

Per offer:

* **Direction** — made by you, made by other party
* **Date**
* **Terms** — what's being offered (asset list, property allocation, super split, lump-sum payment, ongoing arrangements)
* **Status** — open, rejected, accepted, expired, withdrawn
* **Privilege classification** — without prejudice (most common), open offer, or Calderbank
* **Notes** — strategic context, who proposed, any conditions

The platform pre-populates dates and parties from your Master Case File and lets you describe terms either as structured asset-allocation or as free text.

## Reading the tracker

The tracker shows three views:

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Timeline" icon="timeline">
    Chronological — every offer in order. Useful for understanding the negotiation arc.
  </Card>

  <Card title="By party" icon="users">
    Yours vs theirs side-by-side. Useful for "where did we converge / diverge?".
  </Card>

  <Card title="Comparison to analysed position" icon="scale-unbalanced">
    Each offer plotted against your Step 1–4 analysed position (Settlement Planner's headline number). Shows visually whether each offer is conservative, aligned, or aggressive.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Open offers" icon="hourglass">
    Just the offers currently open with expiry dates. Useful for "what's pending?".
  </Card>
</CardGroup>

## Privilege and 'without prejudice'

Most negotiation offers are made **without prejudice** — meaning they are inadmissible at trial as evidence of liability or as concessions. This protects parties who make settlement offers from having those offers used against them at trial.

The Family Law Rules have a specific concept — the **Calderbank offer** — which is a particular form of without-prejudice offer that **is** admissible on the question of costs (not on liability) if the offer is reasonable and not accepted.

The tracker classifies every offer:

* **Without prejudice** — default; not admissible at trial
* **Open** — admissible at trial
* **Calderbank** — without prejudice as to liability but admissible on costs

Get the classification right at the time of the offer; it determines what the offer can be used for later.

## Privilege under FDR

A separate but related point: offers made during Family Dispute Resolution are confidential under section 10H of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — meaning they cannot be repeated in court, even on the question of costs. The tracker flags FDR-context offers and excludes them from any export-to-court generated document.

## Costs implications under r10.05

Where one party rejects a reasonable offer and ultimately receives a worse outcome at trial, the court may make a costs order against them. The tracker supports this argument by:

* Recording each offer with date and terms
* Recording acceptance or rejection
* Comparing each offer to the eventual outcome (when known)
* Producing a Calderbank-suitable letter format if the offer needs to be re-issued for costs purposes

For costs arguments, the offers history exports to a court-compliant format.

## Common offer-tracker patterns

| Pattern                                                              | What it usually means                                               |
| -------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Your offers conservative, theirs aggressive                          | Negotiation may not produce settlement; consider escalation         |
| Your offers align with analysed position, theirs significantly above | Your position is realistic; theirs is opening high                  |
| Both sides move toward each other over time                          | Settlement is approaching                                           |
| Offers static for 60+ days                                           | Stalemate; consider FDR or pivoting strategy                        |
| Their counter-offer above your previous offer                        | Reverse-engineering signal; their floor may be higher than expected |

## Without-prejudice etiquette

A few practices:

<Tip>
  **Mark every offer letter "Without prejudice".** Doesn't make it without-prejudice automatically (substance matters more than label) but is the standard practice signalling intent.
</Tip>

<Tip>
  **Be clear about expiry.** Open-ended offers create ambiguity. Default to a 14- or 21-day expiry; if not accepted by then, the offer lapses.
</Tip>

<Tip>
  **Don't escalate offers without warning.** If you're moving from a without-prejudice negotiation to a Calderbank offer, signal it explicitly. The change in privilege classification is significant.
</Tip>

## What the tracker will not do

* **It will not negotiate for you.** Offers and counter-offers are yours.
* **It will not classify privilege automatically beyond default settings.** You confirm classification at offer time.
* **It will not advise on whether to accept.** Acceptance decisions are strategic; the platform structures the analysis.

## What's next

<CardGroup cols={2}>
  <Card title="Settlement Planner overview" icon="chart-line" href="/settlement-planner/overview">
    Step back to the framework.
  </Card>

  <Card title="AI smart suggestions" icon="wand-magic-sparkles" href="/settlement-planner/ai-smart-suggestions">
    AI-driven negotiation reasoning.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Strategic Planning" icon="chess" href="/court-process/strategic-planning">
    Wider strategy that frames negotiation choices.
  </Card>

  <Card title="Limitation periods" icon="hourglass-end" href="/settlement-planner/limitation-periods">
    The deadlines that frame negotiation timing.
  </Card>
</CardGroup>