Court Opinion

ID: 9644833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:06:07.275994+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:18.639850
License: Public Domain

Webber, J.
(Concurring Opinion)
I concur in both the opinion and the result. I would add only that if the letter accompanying the check had contained any of the language usually employed when a full and final settlement of all disputed claims is intended, I think all would agree that Larsen v. Zimmerman, 153 Me. 116, would be controlling. On the contrary, however, the covering letter creates doubt as to the writer’s intention. Is it intended merely to exert pressure on the plaintiffs to make claim against the U. S. Army Engineers for and on behalf of the defendant? May it properly be inferred that if that is done, the whole matter will be open for further negotiation and adjustment and does the use of the word “today” in its context imply that subsequent developments may produce a different result tomorrow ? Or does this letter make the intention to effectuate a full, complete and final settlement, binding under any and all conditions, so clear that a reasonable man could not construe it otherwise ? In my view the correspondence only served to muddy the waters. With doubt thus created, the plaintiffs properly made inquiry as to just what was intended. The reply made by an official of defendant’s company was equivocal and uninformative, whereby defendant’s intention was veiled in even greater mystery. All' of these factors, so completely unlike the clear and unmistakable expression of intention in .Larsen, made this a case for determination by a jury.