Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Settlement agreements are highly favored under California law. (See, e.g.., City of Orange v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 45, 55, 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 405; Frankel v. Board of Dental Examiners (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 534, 552, 54 Cal. Rptr. 2d 128.) Although ordinary contract principles, including the availability of rescission for mistake (see, e.g., Harris v. Rudin, Richman & Appel (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1332, 116 Cal. Rptr. 2d 552), govern settlement agreements, the favored position of these agreements factors into the assessment of the unconscionability of enforcement.

See Donovan v. RRL Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 261, 109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 807, 27 P.3d 702 (Donovan) deals with rescission for mistake of fact. If mistake is a ground for vacating a satisfaction of judgement (see Remillard Brick Co. v. Dandini (1950) 98 Cal.App.2d 617, 622, 220 P.2d 927), we think it can also be a defense to a motion to compel entry of a satisfaction of judgment. In Donovan, a mistake made by a local newspaper caused an error in a car dealer's advertisement regarding the price of a used car. (Id. at pp. 268-269.) The ...

Register or login to access full content