How have the courts interpreted a settlement agreement?

relies, however, admittedly was an oral one supposedly made during the parties' negotiations of the franchise compliance issues that ultimately gave rise to the settlement agreement. The alleged existence of such an agreement raised a factual issue, not an issue of contract interpretation. Moreover, conflicting parol evidence was introduced concerning the intention of the parties, making the interpretation of the settlement agreement subject to the substantial evidence standard of review. ( Winet v. Price (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1159, 11651166 [6 Cal.Rptr.2d 554] .)

[231 Cal.App.4th 1386]