 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Flynn v. E. I. di Pont de Nemours9/17/1999
me to resolve this dispute. Therefore, we find no basis for his claim of duress.
E. Letter Reserving Right to Seek Modification
The letter of Flynn's counsel accompanying the stipulation and purporting to reserve the right to seek modification of the order does not help either his claim of duress or his request for modification. It stated:
As we discussed in our conversation, and pursuant to our understanding reached in same, I am signing this stipulation so that the materials you have been holding pursuant to our previous discovery requests, and so that the materials we anticipate receiving copies of in our upcoming discovery inspection . . . during the week of July 19, 1993 may be provided by your clients, with the specific understanding that I am reserving my right to approach the court to modify any of the terms and conditions of same. That is, I maintain that certain recitations and conditions in said order are not well taken and warranted, however, I am agreeing to sign same at this juncture to avoid further delay in discovery, but I will be approaching the court to modify same, on the grounds the order sought is over broad and not justified.
This letter permits findings that Flynn's counsel believed himself to be acting under pressure from du Pont, that he considered the order overbroad, and that he communicated his dissatisfaction to du Pont. But counsel's affidavit accomplishes the same thing. A mere subjective perception of urgency -- or mere dissatisfaction with the terms of an agreement -- does not suffice to establish a claim of duress voiding that agreement.
Nor do the recitations in this letter justify modification of the agreement. By its own terms, the letter has no substantive effect. It does not enlarge Flynn's pre-existing rights. It simply reserves his right to seek modification; he has now exercised that right. Counsel's statement that he believed certain provisions in the order to be unwarranted does not affect our assessment of the merits of his motion. And it does not affect Flynn's obligations under the agreement his counsel signed.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the superior court's denial of Flynn's motion.
Page 1 2 3 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|