Business law question?
Evans used his credit card to run up a $98.75 bill with the Rosen Department Store. When Rosen tried to collect, Evans wrote a check for $79.00. He wrote on the check that he meant it to be “full payment of all accounts to date.” Rosen cashed the check. When Rosen sued Evans for the $19.75 balance, Evans argued that under accord and satisfaction, the fact that Rosen cashed the $79.00 check meant that it had accepted that amount as full payment. Was Evans correct?
Can anyone help me out with this question?
- Anonymous3 years agoFavorite Answer
No it meant that Rosen had accepted partial payment upon cashing the check. Rosen did not agree in writing the amount received would be full payment, there is a balance of $19.75 due.
- Eron_17Lv 63 years ago
Nope! You can't trick people into legal agreements, there's too many laws against it, the lawyers have figured out how to win just give up roll over and hope the remainder is all they take with your dignity
- NosehairLv 73 years ago
That's a very old trick and it is my understanding that it hasn't held up in court for many years.
- seedy historyLv 73 years ago
Incorrect. Rosen's is not subject to Evan's doddles on his check. Evan could have written that it was payment in full for a new refrigerator... Rosen's wouldn't owe him a refrigerator either. Notes on a check aren't a legal agreement.