Oral Settlement Stipulation Enforced—Even If Attorney Lacked Actual Authority to Enter Into Settlement, the Attorney Was “Clothed With Apparent Authority”—Failure to Show Mistake, Fraud or any Other Basis to Void the Contract Or That It Would Be Inequitable To Enforce Stipulation
A RESPONDENT had claimed that “his attorney lacked authority to enter into the two-attorney, so-ordered stipulation settling the underlying licensee holdover proceeding.” In rejecting such claim, the court explained that “[a]ssuming, arguendo, that [the attorney] lacked the real authority to do so, as a matter of law, [he was] certainly clothed with apparent authority and the [petitioner] reasonably relied upon that appearance of authority….” The tenant had been “actively represented by counsel who negotiated the stipulation’s provisions in open court, and tenant readily admitted that he spoke with counsel over the telephone and discussed the terms of a potential settlement.” Moreover, there had not been a “persuasive showing” that the stipulation had been “tainted by mistake, fraud, or any other basis for voiding a contract…, or that it would be inequitable to hold the parties to their bargain….”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
