Charity Swift v. Frontier Airlines, Incorporated
636 F. App'x 153
4th Cir.2016Background
- Swift sued Frontier; parties negotiated an oral settlement in which Frontier agreed to pay a specified sum in exchange for dismissal and confidentiality. The parties shook hands and agreed on the amount.
- Frontier later sent a written release to Swift for signature; the release remained unsigned.
- Swift (represented by counsel, her husband) later refused to dismiss, claiming no binding agreement because she had not signed the release, among other arguments.
- Frontier moved to enforce the oral settlement; the district court granted the motion and dismissed Swift’s action.
- Swift appealed, arguing (inter alia) no meeting of the minds, lack of counsel-authority, that the release was a condition precedent, that Frontier negotiated in bad faith, and that a hearing was required.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the oral settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a binding settlement existed | No binding agreement because Swift never signed the written release | Parties reached a complete oral agreement (sum, dismissal, confidentiality) and acceptance was communicated | Court: Oral agreement was formed and enforceable despite unsigned release |
| Whether signing the release was a condition precedent | Signing was required before formation; release was necessary to create the contract | No objective evidence that signature was a condition precedent; agreement manifested by words/acts | Court: No objective manifestation of such a condition; unsigned release did not void oral agreement |
| Whether the district court needed an evidentiary hearing | Hearing required due to disputed facts: meeting of minds, counsel authority, apology term | No substantial factual dispute; terms ascertainable and excuse for nonperformance insubstantial | Court: Summary enforcement appropriate; no abuse of discretion in denying hearing |
| Authority of counsel (husband) to bind plaintiff | Husband lacked authority to accept settlement on Swift's behalf | Husband appeared as counsel and acted in negotiations; record shows he accepted on her behalf | Court: No genuine issue of fact about his authority; enforcement appropriate |
| Unconscionability / bad-faith negotiation | Settlement unfairly procured by preying on Swift's emotional state; inequitable price | Negotiations not coercive; Swift (a lawyer) made the offer and was represented; no concealment or misrepresentation | Court: No factors supporting unconscionability; enforcement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. Am. Household Inc., 378 F.3d 373 (4th Cir.) (district court applies contract principles when enforcing settlements)
- Hensley v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 277 F.3d 535 (4th Cir.) (court may enforce settlement summarily if agreement exists and terms are ascertainable; factual disputes require a hearing)
- Byrum v. Bear Inv. Co., 936 F.2d 173 (4th Cir.) (settlement agreements treated as contracts under general contract principles)
- Levy v. Beach Inv. Corp., 181 S.E.2d 607 (Va.) (contract formed when offeree communicates acceptance)
- Phillips v. Mazyck, 643 S.E.2d 172 (Va.) (objective manifestation of assent required; unexpressed intent insufficient)
- Hart v. Hart, 544 S.E.2d 366 (Va. Ct. App.) (once contract formed, attempted addition of new terms does not void original contract)
- Smyth Bros. v. Beresford, 104 S.E. 371 (Va.) (inequality of price alone requires extreme facts for equitable relief)
- Derby v. Derby, 378 S.E.2d 74 (Va. Ct. App.) (factors like misrepresentation, oppression, or weakness of mind can show unfair bargain)