Like other contracts, these documents can be the subject of protracted litigation, particularly when errors, omissions, interpretative disputes or other misunderstandings arise.
So, while one party may think it's getting a form of closure by signing the document, the other may later feel that the agreement should be rescinded, or not enforced as written, and may ask a judge to restore the litigants to the status quo ante -- the way things were before the stip was signed.
While often an effective plot device for works of fiction, judges will typically resist use of this "way-back machine" power, unless extenuating circumstances -- like fraud, collusion or mistake -- are present.
If the existence of one or more of those factors can not be demonstrated to a court's satisfaction, the agreement's silence about a right or remedy will likely be perceived as a knowing and intentional relinquishment or "waiver" and a litigant will not be afforded an opportunity to rewrite the deal.
By way of example, in Rosewohl Enters., LLC v Gluck , Rosewohl settled a nonpayment case it had brought against its tenant, Jack Gluck, by way of a stipulation of settlement that was "so ordered" by a judge.
When Rosewohl later sought to collect the fees it incurred for having to commence the case, both the New York County Civil Court and the Appellate Term, First Department, rebuffed that effort, finding that the stipulation's silence precluded the recoupment of those charges.
So, for some, silence is golden.
For a copy of the Appellate Term's decision, please use this link: Rosewohl Enters., LLC v Gluck