# Dorchester Indus. v. Comm'r > United States Tax Court · April 29, 1997 · 108 T.C. 320 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472810 ## Case - **Full name:** DORCHESTER INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED, 1 v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE - **Court:** United States Tax Court - **Decided:** April 29, 1997 - **Citations:** 108 T.C. 320; 108 T.C. No. 16; 1997 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 16 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Dissent by Foley - **Judges:** HALPERN - **Cited by:** 85 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472810 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - 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 - stating "A prerequisite to the formation of a contract is an objective manifestation of mutual assent to its essential terms" ## Opinion text 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4472810. Public record. Not legal advice.