Long time readers of this column know that not all enforceable settlements are reduced to formal agreements executed by all parties. A recent federal case in New York presents an instructive look at a court’s evaluation of whether an email, following months of settlement discussions and setting forth detailed settlement terms that the parties seemingly agreed upon, should be enforced.

Ultimately, the plaintiff’s claim that there was an enforceable settlement agreement was undermined by language in the email, the parties’ correspondence after the purported email agreement, and the parties’ conduct. Practitioners should carefully note the “most important” factor in the court’s detailed analysis—the language of the purported agreement—which was on these facts sufficient alone to deny enforcement.