stating that "'A prerequisite to the formation of a contract is an objective manifestation of mutual assent to its essential terms'" (quoting Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10)
How later courts described this case
- stating that "'A prerequisite to the formation of a contract is an objective manifestation of mutual assent to its essential terms'" (quoting Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10)
- explaining that '" [t]his Court has declined to set aside a settlement' [agreement]" absent fraud or mutual mistake (quoting Manko v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-10)
- holding that the Court upholds stipulated settlements “[a]bsent a showing of lack of formal consent, fraud, mistake, or some similar ground”
- explaining that a court will not set aside a settlement stipulation unless good cause is shown
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Hunt v. United States, 94 F. Supp. 2d 665 (2000)
1997 WL 210795, 108 T.C. 320 (1997), relied upon by Hunt, is distinguishable.
The opinion
Foley, J., dissenting: With respect to the three 1993 docketed cases, I agree with the majority. We should hold the parties to their stipulation. If, however, a stipulation has not been filed with, or relied upon by, the Court, and either party objects to its enforcement, the stipulation generally should not be enforced. In Cole v. Commissioner, 30 T.C. 665, 674 (1958), affd. 272 F.2d 13 (2d Cir. 1959), we stated:
once a stipulation is filed by both sides, it is binding upon them. Cf. Fred M. Saigh, Jr., 26 T.C. 171 . But where, for whatever reason, the parties are not in agreement at the time the case is called for trial, it is wholly irrelevant in this connection that they may have been in agreement at some earlier time. * * *
I agree. With respect to the 1994 docketed case, we should not enforce the parties’ prior agreement.