costs
If costs are always awarded to the party who offers settlement, then how&#39;d the offering party&#39;ve failed to specify costs?
<p><sub>Source: <a href="https://store.lexisnexis.ca/en/categories/shop-by-jurisdiction/ontario-10/ontario-small-claims-court-a-practical-guide-skusku-cad-00935/details" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Ontario Small Claims Court - A Practical Guide</em></a> (2011). p. 221 Bottom.</sub></p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>§11.16</strong> Of course, the Rules Committee had various options open to it in the 
  event the offer to settle failed to speak to costs. <strong>[1.]</strong> One option would be to let 
  the parties bear their own costs. If the defendant were self-represented, he 
  would probably take for granted that each side would assume his own costs. 
  This would not be an unreasonable assumption. </p>
  
  <p><strong>§11.17</strong> <strong>[2.]</strong> A second option would be always to give costs to the party accepting 
  the offer, whether he be plaintiff or defendant.  I think that that accepting 
  party would be rather surprised but nevertheless grateful if that were the 
  normal rule.` <strong>[3.]</strong> A third option would be to give costs to the offering party in all 
  cases, regardless of whether he were plaintiff or defendant. But that entitle-</p>
</blockquote>

<p>p. 222 Top</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>ment to costs would be rather unfair to the unsuspecting accepting party, 
  <code>who would argue that a failure on the part of the offering party to specify 
  costs is his fault. The offering party should not be able to capitalize on his 
  own mistake.</code> </p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't understand the gray. 1. How'd such an offering party fail <code>to specify costs</code>?</p>

<ol start="2">
<li>How's this <code>failure (on the part of the offering party to specify 
costs)</code> be <code>his fault</code>? What's his <code>mistake</code>? </li>
</ol>

<p><strong>If</strong> the option were taken to award costs to the offering party, then a defendant could say "I'll give you a a hundred dollars to settle this"; should the unsuspecting plaintiff accept, he would find himself liable to pay both sides' costs and severely out of pocket.</p>

<p>The Committee could not, of course, countenance the idea that a party who was (by definition) legally represented would deliberately lay a trap, so the failure to  specify in the offer who should pay the legal costs can only be a mistake (whether by the defendant or his lawyers). It would obviously be wrong to penalize the plaintiff who had made a "not unreasonable assumption", and to reward the failure by the defendant to make clear the consequences of his offer.</p>
