Execution Of Compromise Agreement

The petitioners voluntarily entered into the compromise agreement, as shown by the following facts: (1) they signed the respondents` demonstration (before the labour arbitrator) that the arbitration award had been carried out; 39 (2) they made a joint affidavit of May 5, 40 and (3) 6 of the 8 petitioners filed a demonstration with the Labour Arbitrator on October 20, 1997 certifying the closing of cases for receipt of payment in full satisfaction with their claims41. Since estoppel has already benefited from the agreement, it prevents petitioners from challenging it. Accordingly, [Team Image and Felix S.Co]] have the right to suspend payment of their undertaking, if any, in accordance with Article 24 of the compromise agreement, and that there is no reason to prohibit a compromise agreement simply because it was concluded as a result of a final judgment. The validity of the agreement depends on compliance with the requirements and principles of the contracts, not on the date of the contract. As stipulated in the Contracts Act, a valid compromise must contain the following: (1) the agreement of the parties to the compromise, (2) a subject that is the subject of the compromise and (3) the cause of the commitment found34. that the Court of Appeal committed a coincidence in upholding the court`s annulment of its earlier decision for the solar team to pay a total of 8,000,000.00 P0 Ig-Atus-Schadensersatz: According to Team Image, Article 24 of the compromise agreement indicates that a letter of execution may be issued for any violation of the compromise agreement. Therefore, for each act of execution, a corresponding award premium must be paid to the aggrieved party. The Image team states that the maximum amount of P2,000,000.00 for liquidated damages that may be awarded “would lead to a serious crisis in which a party would violate and/or violate one of its assurances and guarantees of freedom and the worst, even if they were all, with a relatively small penalty compared to the actual amount that is the subject of the entire compromise”.” 82 “Ignorance of a judgment that can be set aside or set aside is not a valid reason for breaching a compromise.” (fat types) 8.

Comments are closed.

We cannot display this gallery