Bernard P. Ciaramella v. Reader's Digest Association, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that references to “effective date” indicated that “parties did not intend to bind themselves until the settlement had been signed”
• holding that a statement that a draft agreement “shall not become effective . . . until it is signed by [the parties]” constituted strong evidence that that draft agreement was not intended as a binding contract
• finding that the complexity of an eleven-page settlement agreement with provisions applying “into perpetuity” militated in favor of requiring a formally executed writing
• finding that the clause “This Settlement Agreement and General Release shall not become effective (‘the Effective Date’
• stating that “there is no material difference between the applicable state law or federal common law standard”
• finding that there is no material difference between New York state law or federal common law standards on this issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).