LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pleadings – Sufficiency of Traverse by Denial or Non-Admission
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
A traverse may be made either by denial or non-admission, expressly or by necessary implication, provided it makes clear how much is disputed and how much is admitted; there is no difference in effect between denying and not admitting an allegation, but the party must make perfectly clear how much they dispute and how much they admit.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"A traverse may be made either by a denial or a non-admission, expressly or by necessary implication, provided it makes clear how much is disputed and how much is admitted. In pleadings there is no difference in effect between denying and not admitting an allegation. A traverse may be made either by a denial or non-admission, and either expressly or by necessary implication. But whether a party denies or does not admit he must make it perfectly clear how much he disputes and how much he admits."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
A traverse (contradiction of opponent’s pleading) can be effected through either: (1) denial—stating the allegation is false; or (2) non-admission—refusing to accept the allegation without asserting it’s false. Legally, these have identical effect—both put the opponent to proof. The traverse can be express (explicitly stated) or by necessary implication (clearly inferred from the pleading’s content). The critical requirement is clarity: the responding party must clearly delineate what facts are contested versus admitted. Vague or ambiguous traverses fail to raise proper issues. For example, stating “I deny paragraphs 1-10” without specifying which parts are disputed is insufficient. This clarity requirement enables: fair notice to opponents about contested issues, efficient trial preparation focusing on disputed facts, and proper issue formulation