Thank you. One more question?
If this is the case, what is your opinion on the following?
Given the unsigned settlement agreement was meant to replace the first breached contract, if the latter is not in effect (Due to one missing signature), since money exchanged hands based on belief that this new settlement agreement would cure the previously breached one --does this mean we are back to the original contract legally if the one mising sgnature invalidates the new contract?
Considering money exchanged hands due to counting that the new contract was executed (While waiting for the other person's signed agreement), does this mean that we have reverted back to the original, previous breached contract or what are possibilities here in your personal or expert opinion? Whichever one is used on this forum?
What is the case IYHO, due to there being exchange of money (Between parties) that perhaps a judge might consider to be a cure to the previous breach, if the language in fact invalidates the settlement agreement making it invalid? I am going by different legal scenarios I have seen on legal shows.
What is your best interpreaion on this?
Is the cure to this error to try to obtain the ONE missing signature? If we cannot obtain that one signature, is the scenario above at play?