Re: So much for that deal...
Posted: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:45 pm
Ah, didn't see that as I was looking at today's article.jtstang wrote:Look back to the article. Tafel says he did not agree to the entry of a judgment adjudicating title and says SMU did not ask for that until after a title company insisted on it after the agreement in principle. He therefore wants more money for the agreed judgment.
It would seem that the original agreement, whatever it was, would hold in this situation. Is this correct? I'm not a lawyer, nor am I good-looking enough to play one on TV.