OSAFO v. STATE HOUSING CORPORATION

This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of an amended writ of summons. The plaintiff initially filed a writ with two reliefs against the defendants, later amending it to include a third alternative relief. The defendants' counsel sought to exercise an option to settle based on this third relief. The court had to decide whether the addition of an alternative relief granted the defendants the right to choose which relief to provide. The court examined the legal definition of 'alternative' and its application in contract law and legal proceedings. It determined that the amended endorsement on the writ of summons was in the form of an alternative relief, presenting. The court ruled that the alternative relief was directed at the court to consider, not at the defendants to choose from. It viewed the plaintiff's amendment as a procedural strategy to ensure some form of relief, rather than granting an option to the defendants. The court emphasized that interpreting the amendment as giving the defendants a choice would be unconscionable, especially given the advanced stage of the proceedings. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' application to exercise an option based solely on the amended writ of summons. This decision clarifies the purpose and interpretation of alternative reliefs in legal pleadings, emphasizing that such alternatives are meant for the court's consideration rather than the opposing party's selection.