English term (edited): to set off undisputed claims against someone

“Abatement, set-off and counterclaim - what's the difference?

The difference between abatement, set-off and counterclaim is all too often misunderstood. Abatement is the process of reducing a price or a value on the grounds, for example, that the works have not been properly carried out, are incomplete, or not carried out at all. By contrast a set-off is a defence to a claim used to reduce or extinguish a claim and is resultant from a party's breach of contract. However a counterclaim, whilst also results from a party's breach of contract, may also give rise to an award for damages.

Damages sought as a counterclaim or advanced as part of a set-off will usually relate to the cost of rectifying the defective works or the costs caused by delay by the application of liquidated damages. Abatement, however, will relate to the resultant reduction in value of the work as a result of the defect.” http://www.silver-shemmings.co.uk/article.asp?aid=1

“When facing a claim before an arbitral tribunal, the defendant has three options at his disposal. One is, naturally, to deny the claimant’s allegations. The other, a more ‘offensive’ tactic, would be to submit a counterclaim, and the third, a ‘defensive’ option, to raise a set-off defense. The same is also applicable in litigation. Comparative systems of civil procedure clearly distinguish between the counterclaim (Widerklage, demande reconventionelle, domanda riconvenzionale) and the set-off defense [Processaufrechnung (Verrechnung in Switzerland), compensation legale, eccezione di compensazione]” (http://www.ius.bg.ac.rs/Anali/Annals 2006/Annals 2006 101-11...


„Compensaţia este de trei feluri: legală, convenţională şi judiciară.

Compensaţia judiciară. Compensaţia judiciară operează în temeiul unei hotărâri judecătoreşti rămasă definitivă. Pentru pronunţarea ei, nu este necesară întrunirea condiţiilor prevăzute la compensaţia legală. Instanţele de judecată procedează în acest fel atunci când, într-un proces, pârâtul formulează,prin cerere reconvenţională, pretenţii proprii împotriva reclamantului. Dacă pretentiile reciproce au fost dovedite, instanţa de judecată procedează, adeseori, compensarea lor şi obligă la executare doar pe debitorul celei mai mari datorii pentru a plăti diferenţa de datorie care a rămas după compensare.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/44044005/Teoria-Generala-a-Obligat...