In Brief
A system offers to remedy the consequences (repair, replacement, payment), while simultaneously denying that it caused the harm.
Formula: compensatory action = “yes,” legal admission of responsibility = “no.”
How the Mechanism Works
- A claim arises concerning harm and the causal connection.
- The system offers a “peaceful” remedy for the consequences: repair, replacement, compensation, “at our expense.”
- At the same time, in its official (usually written) position, it records a denial of fault: “the causal connection has not been established,” “we are not at fault.”
- The customer is encouraged to accept a practical solution without a formal legal record of the grounds.
- Once the consequences have been remedied, the system uses this as an argument against any further responsibility.
Two-Track Defense
Track 1: Smoothing Over the Conflict
The system reduces tension and resistance through “helpful” actions:
- “we’ll fix it”;
- “we’ll do it at our expense”;
- “we’ll replace/repair it.”
Track 2: Legal Defense
The system blocks legal consequences:
- it does not acknowledge the fact of causing harm;
- it does not acknowledge the causal connection;
- it does not acknowledge responsibility.
The resulting scheme:
action (repair/compensate) = yes
liability admission = no
Why This Is Effective
- The recipient focuses on a quick “solution to the problem.”
- Recording the fact of harm and causality recedes into the background.
- Legal risk for the system decreases because the actions are presented as a “gesture of goodwill,” rather than the fulfillment of an obligation.
The Internal Contradiction in the Position
Statements such as:
- “We are not at fault”;
- “But we will fix everything at our own expense”
create logical tension: remedying the consequences at the service provider’s expense usually implies that the provider acknowledges the existence of harm associated with its action.
How to Neutralize It
- Separate the technical action from the legal grounds: “On what grounds are you remedying the consequences?”
- Document causality in writing before agreeing to repair or replacement.
- Record the formula: “Remedying the consequences does not eliminate the question of responsibility.”
- Do not treat a “repair at the service provider’s expense” as automatically equivalent to a complete settlement if acknowledgment of the harm caused has not been documented.
- Check whether the documents contain language that turns compensation into a “voluntary service without admission of fault.”
Counter-formula:
“Willingness to remedy the consequences may be considered as conduct after the event, but it does not replace establishing the fact that harm was caused and the grounds of responsibility.”
Strict Definition
Mechanism of institutional defense: a system offers compensatory or restorative actions to reduce conflict while simultaneously denying the causal connection and legal responsibility, in order to separate the actual remedying of consequences from the legal acknowledgment of fault.
