D’Agostino v. Federal Insurance Company: Judgment and Legal Principle

Brief Case and Problem Solutions
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Instructor
Date
Brief Case and Problem Solutions
Brief Case
D’Agostino v. Federal Insurance Company 969 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D. Mass. 2013)
1 Facts
Miia C. D’Agostino, through his attorney Richard Goren, was seeking compensation from the Federal Bank as its trustee following the loss of his house, which was razed down by the fire. D’Agostino wanted the payment in exchange for the release of any claims against Federal while maintaining her right to sue Bank of America. However, Federal’s condition to accept to compensate D’Agostino was for him to accept to indemnify Federal against any potential claims by the Bank of America. Goren then sent a settlement offer to the Federal attorney demanding the monetary payment. Federal’s attorney responded by accepting to settle the payment in exchange for indemnification, among other conditions. However, D’Agostino rejected the offer and continued to litigate the case against Federal. Federal responded by filing an “Emergency Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement,” arguing that the release served as an acceptance of D’Agostino’s settlement offer. The question is whether the parties reached an enforceable settlement agreement.
2 Judgment
The court held that the defendant’s motion should be denied.
3 Legal Principle
1 Issue (question of the law)
Whether an agreement where the parties agree on certain essential matters and fail to reach an agreement on all the material terms of a settlement is enforceable
2 Holding (Answer)
Yes
4 Reasoning (Ratio Decidendi)
3 General Analysis
The law on offers for unilateral contracts requires that the offeree accepts to fully perform the request action to be considered as having accepted the offer. In the event that the offeree begins performing the task, the offeror’s power to revoke the contract is suspended. In another approach governing the unilateral contract dilemma, a bilateral contract is generated once the offeree begins performing the task. The case is also governed by the concept of rejection, in which case an offer may expressly reject an offer by indicating that the offeree is unwilling to accept it. Also, the offeree is deemed to have rejected an offer when he makes a counteroffer, which refers to another offer to establish a contract on terms that are different from the terms of the initial offer. In both of these cases, the rejection by the offeree terminates their power to accept the offer. An exception to the general rule on rejections terminating offers is whenever there exists the subject of an option contract. According to some courts, rejection does not terminate an option contract, and hence the offeree who rejects it still possesses the power to accept it later provided that the acceptance is done within the specified period.
4 Applied Analysis
The above case of D’Agostino v. Federal Insurance Company is an example of a unilateral offer, whereby Federal makes an offer to D’Agostino to accept settlement in exchange for indemnification. According to the guideline on such offers, the offer would have bee...