Summary judgment was properly denied on the ground that issues of fact continue to exist whether the parties intended the alleged oral agreement of 1986 to be an accord and satisfaction, and, if so, its intended scope (see,
The Court of Appeals has specifically outlined the factual issue and in fact said that an agreement to settle a dispute can be enforced even though the forfeiture clause was itself...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
