Reached An Oral Settlement Agreement

Both the court and the Court of Appeal found that the parties had entered into an enforceable oral contract for a lump sum settlement of $US 115,000. In upholding the Tribunal`s decision, the Court of Appeal considered whether the parties had reached the “meeting of minds” necessary for an enforceable contract and indicated that the parties` intention should be assessed by external statements of their conduct and not by “hidden intentions”. The court justified this decision by the fact that the parties` statements indicated that the parties had obtained an enforceable oral agreement – which asked the claims advisors whether the McColleys were willing to settle for $115,000, and after talking to their grandparents, the granddaughter replied that they would. On that date, the parties reached an enforceable oral agreement. Depending on the situation, a verbal settlement agreement may be applicable. As you can see, if the parties are actually on board with a transaction agreement, it would be much easier for the parties to execute a written agreement than to appear before a judge, be subject to questioning and confirm the agreement orally. The court began to say that under Kansas law, transaction agreements generally do not have to be written. Id. Thus, without “any element of fraud or bad faith,” the court will apply settlement agreements orally.

Id. An exception exists when a rule or law requires a written agreement. Indeed, Bombardier`s case “is certainly that we all continue to be careful, to cross our T`s and punctuate our Is points,” says Michael Sherrard of Sherrard Kuzz LLP in Toronto. The decision could also extend to other areas of labour law, he said. For example, an oral job offer could also be considered binding. Sherrard also noted that Bombardier`s decision was “consistent in a number of cases.” The Bombardier judge referred to Ferron v. Avotus Corp for the proposition that a transaction would be applied if the parties had agreed on all the essential conditions. Although he found that this had not been the case in Bombardier, the divisional court did the opposite. In the recent unpublished (non-previous) decision of Mathurin v. Matrhurin, the appeal division confirmed once again that the agreements reached in mediation are not binding, unless the conditions are reduced to one condition by the parties and, if so, by their lawyers, and (2) in the absence of such a letter, the Tribunal cannot consider discussions, unsigned agreements or mediation agreements or other transaction negotiations, since these writings/discussions are confidential on the basis of the rules of evidence that provide for privilege in transaction negotiations.

Comments are closed.