Specific Performance Of Settlement Agreement
 The complainant also argues that there was insufficient evidence to show that counsel for the complainant had the power to clarify the case on October 6. The jurors found, however, that the complainant accepted the transaction agreement negotiated by his lawyer. This conclusion was supported by the evidence that the complainant signed the $15,000 indors project, although counsel for the complainant later referred it to counsel for the respondents, and evidence that the complainant apparently signed the releases that were not rendered. (See Robinson v. Hiles (1953) 119 Cal. App. 2d 666, 672 [260 P.2d 194]; See also Gagnon Co., Inc. v. Nevada Desert Inn (1955) 45 Cal.
2d 448, 460-461 [289 P.2d 466].) Although the complainant stated that he was signing the project with the intention that it would take place until the respondents had made statements about political limitations, the jury is not required to accept this assertion. Arbitration is a decision in a private proceeding, and entry into that process usually indicates the end of a business relationship. The arbitrator has the power to resolve certain claims and defences by agreement and to impose an appeal, much as a judge would. In most cases, these remedies are probably money damage; less often, it could be an injunction against the continuation of particular conduct considered illegal. An ongoing relationship between the parties is rare in dercontemplation in an arbitration award. Shortly after Innoviva orally accepted the terms of the transaction, he learned that BlackRock would indeed vote for the board slate to ensure that none of the Sarissa candidates would have been elected. Innoviva then suspended talks with Sarissa and continued voting at the next day`s general meeting. In early April 2017, when three proxy consulting firms in innoviva recommended innoviva shareholders to vote for Sarissa`s elected representatives, the parties began to consider a possible proxy solution. On 18 April, two days before the annual meeting, the vote was still too short and the parties intensified their settlement negotiations. Sarissa proposed to end its proxy campaign if Innoviva (1) expanded its board of directors from seven to nine members; (2) to nominate two of the nominees to Sarissa`s Board of Directors; and (3) to renounce a status quo agreement proposed by Innoviva.
Innoviva insisted that any regulation would require a deadlock. Counsel for the complainant, Mr. Pollack, acknowledged that his Claim of September 30 did not set out such a condition. In light of the statements of counsel for the respondents with respect to the circumstances of this case and the general practices in the area of personal injury, the jury was not required to believe Pollack`s statement that such a condition was routine and was implicit in his request for a transaction.