Bernard P. Ciaramella v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.
7 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1035, 131 F.3d 320, 22 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 1046 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
If parties to a settlement agreement intend not to be bound until the agreement is set forth in a signed writing, they will not be legally bound by any prior oral agreement. A court will look to the totality of the circumstances, including any express reservations in draft agreements, to determine the parties' intent.
Facts:
- Ciaramella filed an employment discrimination suit against his former employer, Reader's Digest Association (RDA).
- The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and RDA prepared a draft agreement.
- All versions of the draft agreement contained language stating it would not be effective until signed by all parties and their attorneys.
- After some revisions were incorporated, Ciaramella's attorney told RDA's attorney, "We have a deal."
- RDA forwarded final execution copies of the agreement to Ciaramella's attorney.
- After consulting a second attorney, Ciaramella found the proposed settlement unacceptable, specifically disagreeing with the terms of a letter of reference, and refused to sign the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Ciaramella filed suit against Defendant Reader's Digest Association (RDA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- RDA filed a motion in the district court to enforce an oral settlement agreement after Ciaramella refused to sign the written version.
- The district court granted RDA’s motion, enforced the settlement, and dismissed Ciaramella's complaint with prejudice.
- Ciaramella (appellant) appealed the district court's judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, with RDA as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an oral settlement agreement become a binding contract when a draft of the agreement includes a provision explicitly stating it will not become effective until it is signed by all parties?
Opinions:
Majority - Oakes, Senior Circuit Judge
No, an oral settlement agreement is not a binding contract under these circumstances. When parties make it clear that they do not intend to be bound by an agreement until it is written down and signed, an oral agreement will not be enforced against them. The court applied the four-factor test from Winston v. Mediafare Entertainment Corp. to determine the parties' intent. First, the draft agreement contained an express reservation, stating it would not be effective until signed, and included a merger clause. Second, there was no partial performance, as RDA had not paid Ciaramella or provided the letter of reference. Third, not all terms were agreed upon, as Ciaramella disputed the contents of the reference letter, a material term of the agreement. Fourth, settlement agreements, especially complex, multi-page agreements with perpetual obligations, are the type of contract that is usually committed to a formal writing. The totality of these factors clearly indicates that the parties did not intend to be bound prior to the execution of the written document.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that parties control the point at which they become contractually bound. It solidifies the application of the four-factor Winston test in the Second Circuit for determining whether parties intended for an oral agreement to be binding when a written document is contemplated. The decision provides a clear roadmap for parties wishing to avoid being prematurely bound by settlement negotiations: include explicit language in draft agreements conditioning effectiveness on execution. The ruling clarifies that informal statements like "we have a deal" by an attorney are generally insufficient to override explicit contractual language requiring a signature.
