How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Legal
Satisfied Customers: 118764
Experience:  JA Mentor -Attorney Labor/employment, corporate, sports law, admiralty/maritime and civil rights law
Type Your Legal Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

I am currently fighting a motion to Enforce settlement

Customer Question

I am currently fighting a motion to Enforce settlement agreement negotiated through emails. I initially stated within the very first email that I "Consider these terms part of a negotiation process and in no way binding. The opposition is claiming that
there was a meeting of the minds by virtue of agreeing on some of the terms. This is in Nevada and they are relying on May v. Anderson May Vs. Anderson 121 Nev. 668 (2005). The Situation: The Opposing party sent me terms, I replied with my editing or additions.
the Final terms were drawn up and did not include my changes nor did I ever express agreement or sign anything. I need case law, Federal and / or Nevada which would defeat their assertions and argument.
Submitted: 2 years ago.
Category: Legal
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
There is no meeting of the minds if you stated in the email that the terms were not binding. Had you not indicated that you did not intend to be bound by the terms you proposed, then they could insist that based on May v. Anderson that you proposed the terms and were going to be bound by them.
The May case specifically states, with citations, "A contract can be formed, however, when the parties have agreed to the material terms, even though the contract's exact language is not finalized until later. In the case of a settlement agreement, a court cannot compel compliance when material terms remain uncertain."
So, by you putting "in no way binding" indicates that the material terms were not certain at that point, so your argument is that the May case is actually opposite of your facts, since there was no indication that you agreed to be bound by the terms proposed and in fact you specifically stated that you did not intend to be bound by them, unlike in May where no such statement was made and their agreement was tacitly implied.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
What about if they added terms that were never even discussed?
The initally purposed terms numbered 9. The final settlement agreement contained 21 terms. the additional terms were never discussed and surely not agreed upon either.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 2 years ago.
Thank your reply.
If they added terms never discussed, there is no meeting of the minds at all, which is said also in the May case and the cases cited within the May case. That is your argument, there could be no meeting of the minds on terms never discussed.
Customer: replied 2 years ago.
I understand that, but is there any additional law, contract or otherwise, which I may cite or rely upon?
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 2 years ago.
Thank you for your reply.
All of the other cases cite back to the same cases in the May case and they also cite May as well, so you have what you need.