Which of the following is a valid judicial admission?

A valid judicial admission occurs when a party formally acknowledges the truth of a fact in the context of legal proceedings. This acknowledgment is significant because it is treated as conclusive evidence against the party making the admission, meaning that the court accepts this fact as true for the purposes of the case without needing further proof.

In contrast, the other options do not fit the criteria for a judicial admission. A witness’s verbal opinion in court generally does not constitute an admission of fact and is often viewed as subjective testimony rather than an acknowledgment of a factual truth. A secret agreement made between parties is not admissible in court as it is not publicly disclosed and cannot be acknowledged legally. Lastly, a disagreement about what contract terms mean is characterized by a lack of consensus and does not reflect an admission of any party regarding the truth of factual elements surrounding the contract itself. Hence, the formal acknowledgment of a fact is what distinguishes a judicial admission and makes it an essential part of legal admissions in court.