Section 7.9 Defenses to Enforcement

• Library: Settling Cases 2014

Because releases are considered contracts, the process of securing a binding release begins with a meeting of the minds. Emerick v. Mut. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 756 S.W.2d 513, 518 (Mo. banc 1988). Obviously, a party seeking to avoid or rely on the effect of the release, in whole or in part, should first look to the terms of the release itself to determine its scope and extent. Hawes v. O.K. Vacuum & Janitor Supply Co., 762 S.W.2d 865 (Mo. App. E.D. 1989). If the release is deemed ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to explain the language. Id. at 868.

Generally speaking, the client’s usual response that “I didn’t even read it!” is of no avail because persons who are competent to contract are also presumed to know the contents of the contracts they sign. Jones v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n, 934 S.W.2d 307, 310 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); Mason v. Mason, 873 S.W.2d 631, 634–35 (Mo. App. E.D. 1994). That presumption is not rebutted simply because the client does not read the contract or have it read before signing it. Haines v. St. Charles...