115 S.Ct. at 391. The Court stated that a party who settles rather than completing an appeal “has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal ..., thereby surrendering his claim to the equitable remedy of vacatur. The judgment is not unreviewable, but simply unreviewed by his own choice.” Id. at —, 115 S.Ct. at 392. Accordingly, the Court examined the equitable considerations involved in allowing vacatur after settlement. Foremost in the concerns of the Court was the public interest, which the Court concluded would be best served by preserving judicial precedent where a party voluntarily relinquishes the right to appeal through prescribed channels. Id.; see also Oklahoma Radio Assoc. v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., 3 F.3d 1436, 1444 (10th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Issue preclusion, like vacatur, is an
recognizing under bancorp an exception could be made even for settled cases where exceptional circumstances counsel  in favor of vacatur recognizing before bancorp the problems with allowing parties to contract around the existence of negative precedent through settlement and vacatur recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a contract is not effective until the performance of the conditions precedent and that a condition precedent calls for the happening of some event or the performance of some act after the terms of the contract have been agreed on before the contract shall be binding on the parties holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract