The article is devoted to two major issues: the substantive nature of settlement agreement,
and legal remedies available for acreditor under compromise which interest is not satisfied
voluntarily. Both issues are covered from comparative perspective employing Russian
and the United States statutes, case law and doctrine. First, the paper demonstrates
that, while Russian doctrines has evolved a sui generis approach to substantial nature of
settlement agreement, United States tend to consider it as special contractual type with
consideration granted specifically for termination of a legal dispute. Second, the article
analyzes scope of res judicata effect invoked in course of Russian and U.S.-governed
settlement, as well as common points and differences in granting creditors with relief
in forms of specific performance and recovery of damages. Finally, the paper considers
problem of rescission as remedy for material breach of compromise. Author comes to
conclusion on desirability of employing this type of claim into Russian legislation.