Marton Remodeling v. Jensen - 706 P.2d 607 (Utah Sup.Ct. 1985)

Rule:

The general rule is that an accord and satisfaction of a single claim is not avoided merely because the amount paid and accepted is only that which debtor concedes to be due or that his view of the controversy is adopted in making the settlement.

Facts:

Plaintiff and defendant entered into a time and materials contract for remodeling work on defendant's home. Defendant was presented a bill and paid for a portion of the bill with a check indicating that the debt was paid in full. Plaintiff indicated on the check that it was not full payment, cashed the check, and sued defendant for the balance. A judgment was entered awarding plaintiff damages and attorney fees. Defendant appealed, arguing that plaintiff’s act of cashing out the check constituted an accord and satisfaction that could not be altered by the words added to the condition placed thereon by plaintiff. 

Issue:

Did the plaintiff’s act of cashing out the check constitute accord and satisfaction, thereby rendering the judgment in favor of plaintiff an error? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and remanded, holding that defendant's payment and plaintiff's subsequent acceptance constituted an accord and satisfaction. Furthermore, it held that plaintiff's acceptance of only the undisputed portion of the single claim did not avoid the fact that an accord and satisfaction existed.