Settle Down: When An Agreement Can Bind You Before Signing
When negotiating a settlement agreement with your employer, it is important to be cautious of what you consent to in writing. Even before signing any formal written document, you have already accepted a binding agreement..
In the recent decision of Stribling v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc. [Stribling][1], a Starbucks employee initially accepted an offer to leave his job and accept compensation, yet refused to sign the subsequent release letter. The Ontario Superior Court denied his wrongful dismissal claim and ruled that the contract was enforceable even without a formal signing.
A contract’s enforceability depends on the manner in which it was accepted, if there was consideration given by the parties, if any party repudiated its terms, and whether the agreement suggested there was “more to be discussed and agreed upon.” In Stribling, the employee accepted all the essential elements and was required to comply with the agreement, even though he had refused to sign it.
The Events of Stribling v Starbucks
Mr. Stribling’s employer provided him an offer to leave his employment in exchange for eight weeks’ pay as compensation, once a final release was signed. After negotiations regarding specific terms, Stribling emailed Starbucks accepting the offer of mutual separation and affirming that he would sign the Docusign once received. When the release form was sent, however, Stribling refused to sign as it incorrectly stated that he was being dismissed for cause. Although Starbucks acknowledged the mistake and later sent a replacement letter with the correct information, Stirling refused to sign the settlement documentation and commenced a claim against Starbucks for wrongful dismissal.[2]
Stirling argued that Starbucks’ offer was invalid since he never executed the settlement. Also, that the agreement had been repudiated when the release letter claimed he was terminated with cause. The Superior Court of Ontario rejected these arguments: even without signing the release, the initial offer contained all the elements of a binding contract.[3] The terms for voluntary separation were clearly laid out, there was communication with legal counsel, and Stribling’s email to Starbucks was a valid method of accepting the offer.[4]
As Stribling failed to provide any evidence that there were issues with the agreement, the judge granted Starbucks summary judgment and ordered Stribling to fulfil his initial agreement by executing the final release.
An Binding Agreement is More than an “Agreement to Agree”
An agreement is not enforceable if it is missing key terms, or is conditional on future negotiations. The key issue is whether its wording suggests that “there was more to be discussed and agreed upon”, including any details relevant to the proposed arrangement.[5] In Stribling, those included his last day of employment, his pay package, remaining employee benefits, and confidentiality clauses. Since those elements were in the initial offer, there were no more material issues to be sorted out in a follow-up. The final release was a mere formality that did not alter the contract which had already been sealed by that point.
This was a case where summary judgment was appropriate, as there was no genuine issue left for trial and there was no dispute over the facts. While a final release was still necessary after the proceedings, given that part of the judgment was an order for Stribling to execute the release, this decision was reached on the grounds that the agreement was already binding.
The Letter’s Mistake Did Not Repudiate the Agreement
The court found that Starbucks mistakenly listing Stribling’s termination as “for cause” was not a repudiation of the agreement. While the first release form did deviate from the agreement, this does not rise to the level of repudiation, which is based on a party’s intention to no longer be bound by the contract.[6] If Starbucks were trying to renege on their earlier terms, they might have repudiated, but this was an innocent mistake that was promptly corrected. The fact that Starbucks made the effort to issue a new, reconciled release form only further affirmed their intent to be bound by the contract.
Stribling’s remaining arguments that the agreement was unenforceable were similarly rejected. The “new” agreement had sufficient consideration, as the original promise of payment upon executing the release still stands. Finally, there was no evidence that Stribling was under any duress to sign the agreement, given that he received legal advice, was provided several deadline extensions, and showed no documents that implied notable financial difficulties.[7]
HOW THIS AFFECTS EMPLOYEES
As an employee, it is important to be aware that what you agree to over email can be legally binding even if no contract is signed. This is especially important in the days immediately following termination of employment, when employers most commonly look to settle a potential wrongful dismissal claim.
This case serves as a reminder that you can bind yourself to an agreement before anything is signed, so one should be careful not to accept an offer too easily. At Walker Law, our team of experienced employment litigators can assist you in strategically negotiating with your employer. Please don’t hesitate to reach out for a consultation.
Tags: Employment Litigation Law, Contract Disputes, and Civil Litigation Law.
[1] Stribling v Starbucks Coffee Canada Inc., 2026 ONSC 1030. [Stribling]
[2] Stribling at para 20.
[3] Stribling at para 28.
[4] Shete, Lada, and Chung v. Bombardier Inc., 2019 ONSC 4083 at para 14.
[5] Stribling at para 34.
[6] Mackiw v Chauhan, 2020 ONSC 2542 at para 22.
[7] Stribling at paras 41, 46.