Lithia’s counsel also promised to send a more formal release for Lee to sign at a later date. Lithia installed the remanufactured engine for which FESC paid, and replaced the clutch at its own expense. The total cost to FESC to replace the engine was $7,352.06, and the cost to Lithia to replace the Subaru’s clutch was $1,293.99. After the clutch was replaced and the remanufactured engine installed, Lee continued to drive the Subaru for nine more months and 17,349 miles. He then took it back to Lithia, claiming the new engine had many issues. Lithia’s inspection revealed no significant issues with the vehicle. Lee ultimately traded in the Subaru to Lithia for a new Jeep Compass at a discounted price. After purchasing the Jeep, Lee went back to court demanding $11,000 in damages and $4,500 in attorney fees. Lithia asked the court for Summary Judgment dismissing the case because it had already been settled. Judge Menahan granted Lithia’s motion because the November 2018 email correspondence between the parties’ counsel formed a valid settlement agreement that barred Lee’s continued litigation of his misrepresentation and MCPA claims against Lithia. The Supreme Court held it did not matter that Lee had not signed the formal release sent by Lithia, concluding “[i]t is established case law that an unconditional acceptance may bind parties in a settlement agreement, even without a detailed agreement.” In particular, the court noted the clear similarities between Lee’s case and the control ling case of Hetherington v. Ford Motor Co., 257 Mont. 395, 399, CONTINUED FROM PAGE 8 @mcconkeyauctiongroup magauctions.com MEETING YOU WHERE YOU ARE After Lithia’s counsel inquired why Lee had declined the benefits of his extended service agreement with FESC, Lee changed his mind and agreed to allow FESC to pay for the installation of a remanufactured engine. 849 P.2d 1039, 1042 (1993), which held that the failure to execute a formal settlement agreement did not bar the formation of a valid agreement when shorter written correspondence between two parties where one party agreed to release al l legal claims in exchange for payment from the other party constituted an “unconditional” offer and acceptance. While it would have been better to get the settlement agreement signed before the repairs were undertaken, Lithia won the case because Lee’s counsel stated in writing that Lee accepted the offer, Lithia’s counsel accepted as well, and Lithia then performed all its obligations, so the settlement was complete – the correct result. 10
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODQxMjUw