The moving party sought judgment under Rule 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure enforcing the terms of an alleged settlement offer.
The dispute arose after the parties exchanged an offer and acceptance referring to an action number that no longer existed due to a prior consolidation order.
The court considered principles of contractual interpretation governing settlement agreements and concluded that the offer was ambiguous and referred to a nullity.
Extrinsic evidence demonstrated that the parties had differing understandings of what was being settled and were not ad idem.
As a result, no enforceable settlement existed and the motion for judgment was dismissed.
