Foskett
on the Law and Practice of Compromise at para.2-08: “A familiar and well established formula for settling disputes is in the following (or similar terms): ‘A agrees to accept from B the sum of [figure] in full and final settlement of all claims which he has or may have arising from [the specified incident or other state of affairs].’ The intention of wording of this nature is plain. It is intended that the payment should discharge finally all claims that have not merely already been advanced, but also those which might subsequently be advanced in connection with whatever incident or state of affairs had brought the parties into dispute. It follows that the intention of the agreement underlying the use of this formula is that an issue not yet identified or formulated is also to be regarded as comprehended in the settlement.” 24 I agree with what the authors of Foskett say in that passage. It would undermine the public policy of not allowing parties to bring successive actions about the same complaint against the same defendants if that policy could be evaded by assigning the rights in question to a new party or raising new ways of framing the complaint that could have been raised the first time around. In my view the complaint in the current action has been settled. For those reasons, I will strike out the claim.