at S10560 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Sen. Cornyn) (emphasis added). Thus, Congress sought to give full effect to the Contract, which was the product of significant and substantial work by the signatories, see id. at H8004 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Johnson) (noting that the WARA outlined a “compromise” that “require[d] give and take of all vested stakeholders”), H8006 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Barton) (stating that the “compromise was hammered out in a deliberative fashion” and that the legislation was “a balanced compromise that has the support of Dallas and Fort Worth”); see also id. at H8010 (daily ed. Sept. 29, 2006) (statement of Rep. Burgess) (characterizing the Contract as an “historic compromise”); S.Rep. No. 109-317, at 17 (<HOLDING>), and legislators, see 152 Cong. Rec. H8010
holding a party breaches a plea agreement by acting in a manner not specifically prohibited by the agreement but still incompatible with explicit promises made in the agreement holding that where the parties fail to reach an agreement as to the character nature or type of release to be used an essential element of the agreement is not established recognizing the concessions made by the signatories to reach an agreement holding that a loi that is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement was nothing more than an invitation to attempt to reach an agreement of sale and not an enforceable contract based on offer and acceptance recognizing that the opinions issued by inter alia the intermediate appellate and trial courts of sister signatories corroborated the supreme courts understanding of article 17 and were therefore entitled to some degree of consideration