## Facts

- A minor passenger, Sandra Speckel, was injured when a car driven by Laurri Perkins collided with a truck driven by Beverly Speckel.
- Speckel’s counsel demanded the $50,000 liability policy limits to settle.
- Defense counsel previously wrote that the limits demand was “overstated” but was forwarded to the insurer for acceptance or rejection.
- Shortly before trial, defense counsel’s office sent a letter stating the case was not a “limits case” but also stating counsel had authority to offer “$50,000.00” to settle; the letter also invited further discussion and potential counteroffers.
- Defense counsel later asserted by affidavit that the intended offer was $15,000 and that the $50,000 figure was a clerical typing error; counsel did not review the letter before it was sent.
- Plaintiff’s counsel immediately responded that the $50,000 offer was “ACCEPTED” and requested a $50,000 draft.
- Defense counsel promptly notified plaintiff’s counsel that the $50,000 amount was mistaken and unauthorized.
- The trial court treated the correspondence as an offer and acceptance and ordered performance of a $50,000 settlement.
- Defendants appealed from the order compelling settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether an order compelling performance of a disputed settlement is appealable as an order that, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment.
2. Whether the settlement letter constituted a definite, enforceable offer for $50,000 such that plaintiff’s counsel’s acceptance formed a binding agreement despite an apparent clerical mistake.

## Decision

- The appellate court held it had jurisdiction because the order compelling settlement effectively determined liability for $50,000 and foreclosed a trial and ensuing appealable judgment.
- The appellate court reversed the order enforcing the $50,000 settlement.
- The court concluded the letter was not a sufficiently definite and unequivocal offer for $50,000 in context, and the internal inconsistency should have alerted a reasonable attorney to likely error, requiring inquiry rather than immediate acceptance.

## Legal Principles

- An order is appealable when it effectively determines the action and prevents entry of a judgment from which an appeal could be taken.
- A settlement communication must reflect a definite and unequivocal offer to be specifically enforced as a contract.
- Under objective contract principles, an offeree may not enforce a term where the offeree has reason to know the offer contains a serious mistake; apparent error can impose a duty to inquire before treating the communication as a firm offer.
- Internal inconsistency within an asserted offer, together with negotiation history, can create notice of mistake and defeat contract formation.
- When the decision turns on written correspondence, the appellate court may independently assess whether the documents establish contract formation.

## Conclusion

The court held the settlement-enforcement order was immediately appealable but reversed on the merits because the inconsistent settlement letter gave notice of a likely clerical error and did not create a binding $50,000 settlement absent further inquiry.


Speckel v. Perkins, 364 N.W.2d 890 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985)