Charles E. and Noel K. Bradley - Page 41

                                        - 41 -                                        
          Settlement Term Sheet is binding or not,34 absent a definitive              
          and adverse party allocation in the settlement document, the                
          payor’s intent behind the settlement governs the allocation of              
          the damage payments.35  More importantly, at the time Ormet and             
          Mr. Boyle initially agreed to the settlement terms, they were               
          intending their $12 million payment to be for contract claims in            
          the six filed cases not tort-like personal injury claims by Mr.             
          Bradley, the possible existence of which had only been recently             
          raised.  Thus, it is apparent the $12 million payment was only              


               34                                                                     
               “[W]hether [an] enforceable contract arises from                       
               preliminary negotiations and letter of intent or must                  
               await formal agreement depends on the intent of the                    
               parties.”  “In ascertaining the intent of the parties                  
               to a contract, it is their outward and objective                       
               manifestations of assent, as opposed to their                          
               undisclosed and subjective intentions, that matter.” *                 
               * * This is true “[g]iven the highly detailed nature of                
               the [letter of intent], the important commercial                       
               circumstances in which it was negotiated, and the fact                 
               that the [letter of intent] appears in all respects to                 
               be a binding contract as to certain promises.”                         
               [Gillenardo v. Connor Broad. Del. Co., No. C.A. 98C-06-                
               015 WLW, 2002 WL 991110, at *6 (Del. Super. Apr. 30,                   
               2002); fn. refs. omitted.]                                             
               35 A settlement may be intended to cover claims not yet                
          added to an existing lawsuit.  See Eisler v. Commissioner, 59               
          T.C. 634 (1973), acq. 1973-2 C.B. 1.  However, the facts in                 
          Eisler are distinguishable from those in the instant case.  In              
          Eisler, both the payor and the payee had a mutual understanding             
          as to the reason for the settlement payment and the intent of the           
          release instrument.  In the instant case, the payor did not                 
          intend for the payment to be made for personal injuries at the              
          time the Settlement Term Sheet was agreed to.  There has been no            
          factual showing that either Mr. Boyle or Ormet intended any of              
          the payments, at the time of the signing of the Settlement Term             
          Sheet, to be for personal injuries.                                         




Page:  Previous  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011