It is not surprising that situations occur in which a party does not meet its obligations, as defined in the transaction agreement. The non-intervening party is generally faced with two options: 1) to bring a civil action in relation to the infringement (often a tedious and costly procedure), or 2) to request the intervention of the court responsible for the initial litigation. However, in order to make use of the latter option, the parties must proceed with pre-billing planning and useful drafting and include in the transaction agreement a provision that the court remains competent for all disputes ahead with respect to the transaction contract. If the original court is a federal court, the parties can at least give their consent to such a court for a reasonable period of time. The Third Circuit adopted a strict conception of Kokkonen to Phar-Mor, Inc. Securities Litigation,10 in which it considered that the inclusion of the term „in the terms of the transaction“ in the termination decision was not sufficient to transfer responsibility for the application of the transaction agreement.11 With respect to the signature, Gauss Court was based on the attitude of the Levy/Superior Supreme Court (1995) 10 C. , 41 CR2d 878, that a court cannot render a judgment under .664.6 if the written counting provision is signed by counsel for the applicant and not by the applicant himself. The Gauss court rejected the argument that Levy should be limited to the context of non-corporate defendants and transaction agreements signed by lawyers. Gauss vs. GAF Corp. (2002) 103 CA4th 1110, 1118, 127 CR2d 370. The Tribunal was not persuaded that the broad and exclusive nature of CCR`s resolution authority should dictate a different result and rejected the applicants` attempt to analogize the situation of an insurer that settled a dispute in which it granted the defence and unqualified remedy of rights. 103 CA4.
1119. In Gauss, GAF, contrary to the insurance scenario, remained responsible for millions of dollars of settlement obligations. The Tribunal concluded that these essential rights could not be lost on the basis of a representative`s signature. The court cannot enforce a transaction agreement if there is none; an agreement reached, approved by the parties, is necessary to establish a breach of a transaction agreement. The power to impose a transaction can only be exercised if the terms have been agreed, although they are not required in writing. 51 The judges of Mesa RHF Partners indicated that there could be another remedy to enforce the transaction agreement in the form of a new remedy for breach of the transaction contract, but the obvious and long enough delay in setting up such an action for a successful conclusion is a poor second choice.