Dowsett v. Cashman

27 Citing cases

  1. Boskoff v. Yano

    217 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Haw. 2001)   Cited 49 times
    Applying Hawaii contract law to a motion to enforce a settlement

    Defendant Yano also contends that Plaintiffs acceptance of the settlement proceeds in the amount of $1,000 per month for 14 months from Defendant Yano bars her from attempting to set aside the settlement agreement. Because "`[t]he construction and enforcement of settlement agreements are governed by principles of local law,'" United Comm. Ins. Serv., Inc. v. Paymaster Corp., 962 F.2d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989)), the Court will construe the Boskoff-Yano settlement agreement according to principles of Hawaii contract law.See Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 81, 625 P.2d 1064 (1981). As is the case in many jurisdictions, Hawaii law "favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation."

  2. Amantiad v. Odum

    90 Haw. 152 (Haw. 1999)   Cited 117 times
    Concluding that "HRS § 386-151 . . . bestows upon the Director of Labor the fiduciary obligation of administering and maintaining the special compensation fund" even though the statute does not expressly refer to fiduciary duties

    We acknowledge the well-settled rule that the law favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation. Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 82-83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981). Such alternative to court litigation not only brings finality to the uncertainties of the parties, but is consistent with this court's policy to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes.

  3. Sylvester v. Animal Emergency Clinic

    72 Haw. 560 (Haw. 1992)   Cited 25 times
    Stating that "this court's policy [is] to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes" through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation

    We acknowledge the well-settled rule that the law favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation. Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 82-83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981). Such alternative to court litigation not only brings finality to the uncertainties of the parties, but is consistent with this court's policy to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes.

  4. Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy

    NO. CAAP-12-0000025 (Haw. Ct. App. Aug. 26, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    We first consider whether a valid settlement agreement was formed. In Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that a binding compromise agreement had been formed when the parties, "in open court, entered into what appears to be a voluntary, well-thought-out, and previously discussed agreement to settle their dispute." The ICA explained:

  5. Goran Pleho, LLC v. Lacy

    NO. CAAP-12-0000025 (Haw. Ct. App. Jul. 29, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    We first consider whether a valid settlement agreement was formed. In Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981), the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) held that a binding compromise agreement had been formed when the parties, "in open court, entered into what appears to be a voluntary, well-thought-out, and previously discussed agreement to settle their dispute." The ICA explained:

  6. HAN v. YANG

    84 Haw. 162 (Haw. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 47 times
    Holding fiduciary has duty of full, fair, complete, and timely disclosure of material facts

    The public policy of our appellate courts "favors the resolution of controversies through compromise or settlement rather than by litigation." Id. at 566, 825 P.2d at 1056 (citing Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 82-83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981)). Settlement agreements facilitate our appellate courts' "policy to foster amicable, efficient, and inexpensive resolutions of disputes."

  7. Miller v. Manuel

    9 Haw. App. 56 (Haw. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 67 times
    Holding that motions to enforce disputed compromise agreements are treated as motions for summary judgment

    Where the evidence in the record shows that all the essential elements of a contract are present, a compromise agreement among the parties in litigation may be approved by the court and cannot be set aside except on grounds that would justify rescission. SeeDowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 625 P.2d 1064 (1981). "`[G]enerally, in the absence of bad faith or fraud, when parties enter into an agreement settling and adjusting a dispute, neither party is permitted to repudiate it.'"

  8. Miller v. Manuel

    821 P.2d 309 (Haw. Ct. App. 1991)

           Where the evidence in the record shows that all the essential elements of a contract are present, a compromise agreement among the parties in litigation may be approved by the court and cannot be set aside except on grounds that would justify rescission. See Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw.App. 77, 625 P.2d 1064 (1981). " '[G]enerally, in the absence of bad faith or fraud, when parties enter into an agreement settling and adjusting a dispute, neither party is permitted to repudiate it.' "

  9. Albert v. William

    CIVIL 23-00221 SOM-WRP (D. Haw. Aug. 14, 2024)

    Establishing the existence of a contract requires “‘an offer and acceptance, consideration, and parties who have the capacity and the authority to agree as they do.'” In re Doe, 90 Hawai‘i 200, 208, 978 P.2d 166, 174 (1999) (quoting Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw.App. 77, 83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981)). Further, “‘[t]here must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential elements or terms in order to form a binding contract.'”Carson v. Saito, 53 Haw. 178, 182, 489 P.2d 636, 638 (1971) (quoting Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Paschoal, 51 Haw. 19, 26-27, 449 P.2d 123, 127 (1968)).

  10. Yoshimura v. Kaneshiro

    CIVIL 18-00038 LEK-WRP (D. Haw. May. 15, 2019)

    "'an offer and acceptance, consideration, and parties who have the capacity and the authority to agree as they do.'" In re Doe, 90 Hawai`i 200, 208, 978 P.2d 166, 174 (1999) (quoting Dowsett v. Cashman, 2 Haw. App. 77, 83, 625 P.2d 1064, 1068 (1981)). Further, "'[t]here must be mutual assent or a meeting of the minds on all essential elements or terms in order to form a binding contract.'" Carson v. Saito, 53 Haw. 178, 182, 489 P.2d 636, 638 (1971) (quoting Honolulu Rapid Transit Co. v. Paschoal, 51 Haw. 19, 26-27, 449 P.2d 123, 127 (1968)).