- 12 -
during the February 21 conversation was, at best, his
understanding of the intent or actions of another person–-Ms.
Gonzalez or her office. The subsequent discussion between
Messrs. Carriger and Stientjes was essentially an argument about
whether petitioners’ offer of settlement had been accepted.
The essence and focus of the February 21 and March 2, 2006,
telephone conversations indicate that petitioners were more
concerned about avoiding the new issue (noncash contribution)
than merely enforcing the settlement of the cash contribution
issue. We are not compelled to consider this subtlety, because
we hold that there was no acceptance of the offer, and, hence the
entire case could not have been settled. Even though
respondent’s counsel indicated in the March 2, 2006, telephone
conversation that the cash contribution issue was or would be
settled, that was after a new issue (the non-cash-contribution
issue) had been raised. In any event, it is not sufficiently
clear that the cash contribution issue had been settled before
the March 2, 2006, conversation.
Although there is precedent that would permit this Court to
enforce an oral settlement or acceptance of a settlement offer,
it must appear reasonably certain that the parties had agreed or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011