This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| Likewise, respondents' argument that a supervening event, i.e. disagreement among the parties, was present to justify disturbance of the final judgment on compromise fails to persuade. A supervening event may justify the disturbance of a final judgment on compromise if it "brought about a material change in [the] situation"[64] between the parties. The material change contemplated must render the execution of the final judgment unjust and inequitable. Otherwise, a party to the compromise agreement has a "right to have the compromise agreement executed, according to its terms."[65] | |||||
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| "[They cannot] relieve parties from [their] obligations . . . simply because [the agreements are] . . . unwise."[68] Further, "[t]he mere fact that the Compromise Agreement favors one party does not render it invalid."[69] Courts do not have power to "alter contracts in order to save [one party] from [the effects of] adverse stipulations. . . ."[70] | |||||