Friday, October 10, 2014

Cox v. Pearl Investment case brief summary

Cox v. Pearl Investment case brief summary

F: ruled in favor of D on a showing that release had been executed by P in favor of a joint tort feasor.
P fell on property owned by D, and earlier the tenant had paid the Ps in consideration of P’s execution of covenant not to sue.

R: Covenant not to sue in the instrument should be interpreted to be an absolute and full release of all joint tort feasors unless it is evident that the consideration paid to the P was not intended to be full compensation for his injuries and the agreement clearly intended to preserve the liability of those who were not parties to it.


CL – if you release one, you release all
Many states modified this rule by making distinction btw release and covenant not to sue (covenant not to sue - this means not
to release)
Practically, there is no diff. btw release and covenant not to sue

1. release one, release all
2. release one, release all, but if you sign covenant not to sue one, you don’t release all
3. look to the intent of parties regardless of what they call (either release or covenant not to sue)

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...