Judge Gale stated that the MOS had an agreed settlement amount and payment plan and a calculation of interest, including the provision of a first payment to partially satisfy the amount of the transaction, which “would in any event not be refundable, but which would be charged against any future transaction amount or on a judgment in favour of the applicants”. The MOS also stated that the parties “will, in their best faith, make efforts to implement and enter into a formal settlement agreement confirming the payment plan to be respected by the defendants, reciprocal decommitments and other terms to be agreed by and between the parties.” The MOS also stated that “if the parties are unable to agree on the terms of a final settlement so that it is necessary to continue the litigation of the remedy, the defendants agree and acknowledge that the applicants remain entitled to make the statements of certain persons”. Dispute resolution is usually a good thing for the parties. After a bitterly contested fight, most of the time it can be paid as a victory to get both sides to agree on a solution that works for both sides. Typically, the parties reach an “agreement in principle” on key terms, either through mediation or solely through negotiation of what has been won, and agree to include the rest of the details in the final settlement agreement. In many cases, both parties tend to relax after the agreement in principle. It`s a mistake. It is very important to “think and fight” until the final document is signed. It`s a hard lesson to learn the hard way, as reported in a recent issue of The In-House Advisor blog. Click here to read it. From the blog: These are questions that are taken into account in many cases and different situations. In the past, courts have considered these cases in the context of different categories of agreements on the basis of Masters v.
Cameron. The Supreme Court of New South Wales recently re-examined these issues in P J Leahy & Ors v A R Hill & Anor  NSWSC 6. In that case, Mr. Leahy (and his related parties) commenced proceedings against Les Dames and Ms. Hill to recover a sum he claimed for hangar repairs and arrears under a licensing agreement. In this case, the parties had entered into a settlement agreement “in principle”, as indicated in an email from one of the defendant`s lawyers. The language “in principle” emphasized the fact that, indeed, there had never been a real meeting of spirits. Emails from the defendants` lawyers had warned against any further changes to the draft settlement agreement – although the emails described the changes as “few” and “very minor”. In the last e-mail sent by the defendant`s lawyers before the agreement broke up, the draft was described as “final”, but expressly stated that it was subject to the applicant`s approval and that it needed the applicant`s “green light”. The Ontario Superior Court recently upheld these principles in Lumsden et al.