- 19 -
1995, by telephone, Garofalo made certain minor changes to those
proposed settlement figures, which changes were confirmed by the
November 6 letter. The November 6 letter was faxed to and
received by Gilson during the morning on November 6, 1995. We
base that finding principally on Garofalo’s testimony that he
believed that the November 6 letter was faxed to Gilson at
11:30 a.m., on November 6, 1995, and Gilson’s testimony that he
recollects reviewing the November 6 letter on November 6, 1995.
Moreover, the November 6 response refers to Garofalo’s “revised
offer of this morning, November 6, 1995.” We are convinced that
the proposed settlement figures conveyed to Gilson by way of the
November 3 letter and modified somewhat on November 6, 1995, by
way of the November 6 letter constitute the definite and material
terms of an offer to settle the docketed cases, and we so find.
Dorchester and Frank Wheaton argue that the November 6
response, faxed by Gilson to Garofalo at 3:30 p.m., was too late
and, thus, no agreement was reached. We do not agree. First,
Gilson accepted the Government’s proposals during his telephone
conversation with Garofalo during the morning of November 6,
1995. The November 3 letter, however, called for a written
acceptance. The November 6 letter extended the time for the
written acceptance to 1:00 p.m. By telephone during the morning
of November 6, 1995, Garofalo extended the 1:00 p.m., deadline
contained in the November 6 letter. It is hornbook law that, if
an acceptance fails to comply with a time requirement in an
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011