To settle this matter amicably, I offer you the sum of [amount] (including interest and fees) as a full and final account of the [debt/debt] mentioned above. 3. Settlement level – be aware of what is being settled and think carefully about the claims that the transaction contract covers. For example, if you want to ensure that you cover existing, unknown and future claims, use language such as « full and final settlement of all claims that the parties have or may have against each other, which arise from [certain events]. » If you want to resolve a narrower point of contention, say so. In addition to resolving disputes in civil proceedings, transaction agreements are often used in the employment context to resolve workers` claims against employers. A worker or worker may agree to waive severance pay in court or the labour court or not to bring an action against an employer. 9. Execution – Make sure that the person who will sign the transaction contract has the authority to hire the party representing him, and if the comparison is made by an act, that all the formalities of execution of the acts are respected. 6. Confidentiality – most parties would prefer the transaction agreement to remain confidential.
Be sure to include an explicit confidentiality provision in the transaction agreement, while allowing some necessary exceptions (for example. B by court order or limited to accountants, insurers and lawyers of the parties). If proceedings have been initiated and you wish to ensure confidentiality, the agreement must be referred to a Tomlin warrant and not to a consent order. Make sure that sensitive terms are not referenced in the location or timing of the Tomlin order, or that your reference to the separate agreement identifies them with sufficient certainty. If the issue is of high reputation or of interest to a particular sector, it is also useful to agree on some form of public press statement/press release, particularly where the actual billing conditions are confidential. In Chappel v. Roth, 353 N.C. 690, 692-693, 548 S.E.
2d 499, 500 (2001), the North Carolina Supreme Court, after finding that comparisons were preferred under the law and that negotiated regulation was encouraged and should be honoured, he nevertheless noted that the agreement reached by the parties in this case was not binding.