Case No. 53 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION Horn Waterproofing Court of Appeals 66 N.Y.2
ID: 381509 • Letter: C
Question
Case No. 53 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION Horn Waterproofing Court of Appeals 66 N.Y.2d 321; 497 N.Y.S.2d 310 (1985) FACTS: Plaintiff Horn Waterproofing Corp. (Horn) was hired by defendant Bushwick Iron and Steel Co., Inc. (Bushwick) to repair a leaking roof on a building owned by Rushwick. Horn worked on the roof for two days and then determined that, rather than a new roof was required. Horn billed Bushwick for $1080.00 for the two days of work. ick, disputing the amount of the bill, sent Hom a check for S500.00 and wrote the Bushw following on the back of it: "This check is accepted in full payment, settlement, satisfaction release and discharge of any and all claims and/or demands of whatsoever kind and nature". Horn, unwilling to accept $500.00 as payment in full, printed the following under Bushwick's notation, "Under Protest". Horn then endorsed and deposited the check. Thereafter, Horn began this lawsuit seeking the balance of the bill, $580.00. Defendant denied owing the money, claiming that Horn's deposit of the check constituted an accord and satisfaction ISSUE: Where a debtor makes a partial payment by check of a disputed bill and puts a notation on the check indicating the check is offered as payment in full, and the creditor adds to the check the words "under protest", does an accord and satisfaction exist? DECISION: No. REASONING: A creditor may retain the right to collect the balance of a disputed claim and ue check offered as payment in full of a debt. Use of expressions such as "under ess requires that a creditor should be able to retain a partial payment made by the be unjust to creditors who would be in the unfair position of having to choose between avoid an accord and satisfaction by explicitly reserving such right in the endorsement or without prejudice" are sufficient for this purpose debtor without having to f forfeiting the partial payment or sacrificing the right to the balance of the debt. QUESTIONS** joncerning the elements of an accord and satisfaction, how are the facts of this case similar to the facts of (See back of text for answers)Explanation / Answer
The issue here is whether the agreement between the gatherings is an agreement for the offer of merchandise administered by the Uniform Commercial Code, with the end goal that offended party's arrangement of the check "Under Protest" stayed away from an understanding and fulfilment of the claim. We hold that the gatherings' assent ion was not an agreement for the offer of merchandise. Under the precedent-based law, the acknowledgment and transaction of a check offered in full instalment and fulfilment of a debated case would, as an issue of law, constitute an understanding and fulfilment of that case. For claims emerging out of an agreement for the offer of merchandise, in any case, area 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code gives that, "A gathering who with unequivocal reservation of rights performs or guarantees execution or consents to execution in a way requested or offered by the other party does not subsequently bias the rights held. Such words as `without partiality', `under dissent' or the like are adequate". Accordingly, obviously, if the understanding at bar is administered by the Uniform Commercial Code, offended party's underwriting of the check under dissent was adequate to save its rights to recoup the rest of the entirety asserted to be expected and owing.
Defendant argues that the agreement, rather than being one for the sale of goods, is one for the rendition of work, labour and services to which the common-law rule applies. The decisions in this State have distinguished between the two types of contracts by examining whether the element of the transfer of goods or personal property predominates over the element of work, labour and services.