Accord And Satisfaction

531 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 14 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Cruz v. Pac. Am. Ins. Corp.
  337 F.2d 746· 9th Cir.· 1964-10-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the 12% statutory damages were mandatory and should be added to the judgment, but attorney's fees were discretionary and properly denied. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees but reversed its denial of the 12% damages.
• E. A. Turner Constr. Co. v. Demetree Builders, Inc.
  141 So. 2d 312· Fla. 1st DCA· 1962-05-15 ·cited 12×
  The parol evidence rule bars evidence that seeks to vary the terms of a written agreement that is intended to be a complete statement of the whole contract.
• United States v. Hardy
  299 F.2d 600· 4th Cir.· 1962-02-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the taxpayer's fraud prevented him from relying on the statute of limitations to avoid paying the remaining one-half of his 1942 tax liability, and his counterclaim for refund was also barred.
• Moskowitz v. United States
  285 F.2d 451· Ct. Cl.· 1961-01-18 ·cited 12×
  A taxpayer's offer to compromise tax liability, even if accompanied by a check deposited in a special account, does not constitute a settlement unless it strictly follows the exclusive statutory procedure for compromises under the Internal Revenue Code.
• Purofied Down Prods. Corp. v. Travelers Fire Ins. Co.
  278 F.2d 439· 2d Cir.· 1960-05-04 ·cited 12×
  An accord and satisfaction can be found based on the parties' intent, not solely on a written statement accompanying payment.
• Leffert Holz (Thomas Thatcher v. Smullan
  277 F.2d 58· 7th Cir.· 1960-03-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the notice of appeal was timely and that under Illinois law, the defendant agent was not liable for returning unearned premiums to policyholders with the approval of the ancillary liquidator.
• Abel v. Brayton Flying Serv., Inc.
  248 F.2d 713· 5th Cir.· 1957-10-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its judgment, as the contract was not usurious and the individual Brayton was not an indispensable party. The appellee's cross-assignment of error was also dismissed.
• Weiss v. Duro Chrome Corp.
  207 F.2d 298· 8th Cir.· 1953-10-14 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff, by accepting reduced commissions without protest for over a year and continuing to perform under the contract, consented to the modification and was estopped from claiming the original commission rate.
• Tex. Water Supply Corp. v. Reconstr. Fin. Corp.
  204 F.2d 190· 5th Cir.· 1953-04-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that no demand was necessary before suing the guarantors, and that the Texas Corporation's counterclaim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Cate v. Good Bros., Inc
  181 F.2d 146· 3d Cir.· 1950-04-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the parties formed a binding settlement agreement through a letter and subsequent conduct, making the original contract dispute moot.
• In re Kellett Aircraft Corp.
  173 F.2d 689· 3d Cir.· 1949-02-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the October contract, which substituted for the April contract, was valid and binding, and that the retention of tools by the seller without delivery constituted a fraud in law as to creditors.
• Atl. Co. v. Broughton
  146 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1944-12-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Fair Labor Standards Act does not prohibit an employee from settling a bona fide controversy with an employer regarding wages due, even if the settlement amount is less than the statutory minimum or overtime pay.
• Birbalas v. Cuneo Printing Indus., Inc.
  140 F.2d 826· 7th Cir.· 1944-02-25 ·cited 12×
  Releases executed by employees in exchange for payment of only overtime compensation were invalid as an accord and satisfaction because the Fair Labor Standards Act's liability for overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees constitutes a single, indivisible cause of action
• Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Glenwood Hancock
  124 Fla. 725· Fla.· 1936-06-30 ·cited 12×
  In a garnishment action, the Florida Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict holding that a liability insurance company was indebted to judgment debtors under an insurance policy, despite a contractual clause requiring the insured to actually pay losses before suing. The court affirm
• Chassan Prof'l Wallcovering, Inc. v. Victor Frankel, Inc.
  608 So. 2d 91· Fla. 4th DCA· 1992-10-28 ·cited 11×
  Chassan Professional Wallcovering sued Victor Frankel, Inc. and the Dorfmans for payment under a painting contract. The trial court granted summary judgment midway through Chassan's case based on res judicata and accord and satisfaction defenses. The appellate court reversed, hol
• Corp. de Gestion Ste-Foy, Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  385 So. 2d 124· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-06-17 ·cited 11×
  A Canadian corporation owning a Florida apartment building challenged Florida Power & Light's demand for $99,000 in underbilled electricity charges resulting from a meter-reading error over a three-year period. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that public ut
• Sears v. Jardel Co., Inc.
  421 F.2d 1048· 3d Cir.· 1970-01-30 ·cited 11×
  A release executed by a contractor to a subcontractor is binding on the property owner (who is a third-party creditor beneficiary of the subcontract) if the owner did not materially change its position in reliance on the subcontract before the release was executed.
• Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Govin T. Rajan
  93 So. 3d 1124· Fla. 2d DCA· 2012-07-27 ·cited 10×
  Zirkelbach Construction sought certiorari to quash a discovery order compelling production of documents from its liability insurer's claims file. The court granted the petition, holding that the claims file materials were protected work product and that Rajan failed to establish
• United States v. Morrison
  28 So. 3d 94· Fla. 1st DCA· 2009-12-31 ·cited 10×
  The United States appeals a trial court decision that declared a mortgage null and void for lack of consideration, denied foreclosure, and awarded $100,000 in damages to borrowers who alleged the government violated consumer credit laws. The appellate court reversed, holding the
• Vencor Hosps. d.b.a. Vencor Hosp. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield OF Rhode Island
  169 F.3d 677· 11th Cir.· 1999-03-08 ·cited 10×
  Vencor Hospital sought payment from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island for hospital services provided to Medicare patients after their Medicare coverage expired. The court held that Vencor had standing as a third-party beneficiary to sue on the Medigap insurance policies and
• Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Draper's EGG & Poultry Co.
  557 So. 2d 1357· Fla.· 1990-03-01 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a utility customer's payment of a consolidated water bill does not constitute an accord and satisfaction barring the utility from later billing for separately discovered undercharges on other accounts that were not the subject of dispute or dis
• Exxon Co. v. Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas
  828 F.2d 1121· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that conflicting provisions in a letter of credit must be construed to allow for performance, and inconsistencies are resolved against the drafter.
• Leaman v. Ohio Dep't OF Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities
  825 F.2d 946· 6th Cir.· 1987-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's voluntary election to sue in the Ohio Court of Claims constituted a waiver of her federal claims against state employees, as the Ohio statute provided a reasonable alternative forum and remedy.
• WM. A. Smith Contracting Co., Inc. v. The Travelers Indem. Co.
  467 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1972-10-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a written settlement agreement, which contained mutual releases and was intended to resolve all claims under the contracts, could not be modified by a contemporaneous oral agreement regarding a specific fire damage claim, absent fraud, accident, or mistake.
• Kiess v. Eason
  442 F.2d 712· 7th Cir.· 1971-05-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly entered because the plaintiff unequivocally accepted the stock allocation and his subsequent sale of stock was not legally attributable to the defendants' actions.
• Eulo v. Deval Aerodynamics, Inc.
  430 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 10×·via Executory Accord
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the release agreement's interpretation and validity were not fully litigated, requiring a remand for further proceedings. The court also reversed the order for a new trial.
• Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. DAY & Co.
  209 So. 2d 709· Fla. 2d DCA· 1968-05-01 ·cited 10×
  The trial court's findings of fact are presumed correct and will not be disturbed if supported by substantial competent evidence, which was the case here.
• Reserve Ins. Co. v. Earle W. DAY & Co.
  190 So. 2d 803· Fla. 2d DCA· 1966-10-14 ·cited 10×
  An insurance agent sued an insurance company for breach of contract, alleging the company failed to reimburse losses exceeding $7,500 as required by their agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the agent, but the appellate court reversed, finding genuine issues o
• Brubaker v. United States
  342 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1965-02-26 ·cited 10×
  A settlement agreement for renegotiation matters did not include the taxpayer's excess profits tax liability because it was not explicitly mentioned and the correspondence indicated the parties intended to settle only renegotiation claims.
• United Nations Korean Reconstr. Agency v. Glass Prod. Methods, Inc.
  291 F.2d 168· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-17 ·cited 10×·via Executory Accord
  The court held that Simplex was bound by the June 1954 contract due to apparent authority conferred upon International, but the January 1955 contract constituted a novation discharging Simplex's prior obligations. The court also held that the February 1955 letters did not waive I
• Walla Walla Port Dist. v. Palmberg
  280 F.2d 237· 9th Cir.· 1960-06-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in awarding interest on the admittedly due sum and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict regarding unexpected dredging conditions.
• Allstate Ins. Co. v. Springer
  269 F.2d 805· 6th Cir.· 1959-08-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the jury's finding that the insured's answers on the application were true was improper, and that the insured understood the policy was voided by the insurer's actions.
• Parker v. Parker
  109 So. 2d 893· Fla. 2d DCA· 1959-03-11 ·cited 10×
  The appellate court granted a motion to strike portions of the appellant's brief and appendix because they quoted from a deposition that was not introduced into evidence.
• Am. Textile Mach. Corp. v. United States
  220 F.2d 584· 6th Cir.· 1955-03-25 ·cited 10×
  A compromise settlement agreement, even if not fully performed, can act as a bar to an original obligation if it is a valid contract and has not been breached by the debtor.
• Autographic Register Co. v. Philip Hano Co., Inc.
  198 F.2d 208· 1st Cir.· 1952-07-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's acceptance and retention of royalty payments made under protest constituted an oral modification of the license agreement, supported by valid consideration, entitling the defendant to a refund.
• Heagney v. Brooklyn E. Dist. Terminal
  190 F.2d 976· 2d Cir.· 1951-07-30 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge argues that partial awards, even if paid, do not constitute a full compromise or release of federal statutory claims, as a final award is required under New York law.
• Gangi v. D. A. Schulte, Inc.
  150 F.2d 694· 2d Cir.· 1945-07-20 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge holds that an accord and satisfaction is a valid bar to the suit when a bona fide dispute over coverage exists and the parties dealt at arm's length.
• Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Mercantile Commerce Bank & Tr. Co.
  143 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1944-06-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the insured's letter of October 24, 1939, was insufficient proof of disability for the period in suit, and that the insurer's denial of liability did not constitute a waiver of the requirement for timely proof of disability.
• United States v. Lundstrom
  139 F.2d 792· 10th Cir.· 1943-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a dispute over contract interpretation is a question of law for the courts, not subject to the contract's disputes clause for factual determinations. Acceptance of progress payments does not preclude quantum meruit recovery when performance is under protest du
• In re Petition of Leo Stalnaker for Reinstatement as Attorney at Law
  150 Fla. 853· Fla.· 1942-06-30 ·cited 10×
  Leo Stalnaker sought reinstatement to practice law after a twelve-month suspension ordered in 1930 for misappropriation of a minor's funds. The Florida Supreme Court held that restitution need not be paid in full before reinstatement, but only to the extent of the attorney's fina
• Stone v. Stone
  873 So. 2d 628· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-06-04 ·cited 9×
  The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion in a closed case (00-4865) but had jurisdiction in the pending case (00-4215) and did not err in denying the motion without a hearing.
• Ipec Inc. v. Int'l Lithographing Corp.
  869 F.2d 1080· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the second contract, entered into under economic duress, was not a valid modification or waiver of the first contract, nor did it constitute an accord and satisfaction, because the defendant did not act in good faith.
• S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Acme Elec. Contractors, Inc.
  418 So. 2d 1187· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-09-01 ·cited 9×
  Southern Bell appeals a jury verdict awarding Acme Electrical $309,000 in quantum meruit for extra electrical work performed during construction of a building addition. The court affirms, holding that quasi-contract recovery is available even when an express contract exists betwe
• Ferguson v. Abe Cotler
  382 So. 2d 1315· Fla. 5th DCA· 1980-04-23 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a party can recover money paid by mistake, even if the mistake was unilateral, provided the recipient cannot show a legal or equitable right to retain it and has not detrimentally relied on the mistake.
• Mount Sinai Hosp. OF Greater Miami, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.
  285 So. 2d 645· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-10-30 ·cited 9×
  Mount Sinai Hospital appealed a summary judgment dismissing its misappropriation suit against Cordis Corporation on statute of limitations grounds. The hospital claimed Cordis wrongfully appropriated a cardiac pacemaker concept and patent rights developed by hospital-affiliated d
• Richards Constr. Co. v. AIR Conditioning Co. OF Haw.
  318 F.2d 410· 9th Cir.· 1963-05-27 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a subsequent contract settling a genuine dispute over the existence and terms of an initial agreement is supported by valid consideration, even if one party's initial promise was arguably based on a mistake.
• Sapp v. The Atl. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville
  105 Fla. 507· Fla.· 1932-05-12 ·cited 9×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a judgment against Annie W. Sapp, finding that the trial court erred by sustaining a plea of compromise and settlement without sufficient evidence. The court held that the settlement document presented did not adequately prove a settlement of th
• Book v. City OF Winter Park
  718 So. 2d 945· Fla. 5th DCA· 1998-10-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City did not waive its settlement defense because the issue was tried by implied consent, even though it was not raised in the pleadings.
• Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba
  699 So. 2d 701· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The Dade County School Board appeals a judgment requiring it to reimburse parade sponsors for settlement payments made to injured spectators burned during a 1990 Three Kings Day Parade. The court affirmed the award under the doctrine of equitable subrogation, finding DCSB liable
• In re Unioil, Inc. v. H.E. Elledge
  962 F.2d 988· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a proof of claim amendment substituting the correct claimant relates back to the original filing date and that division orders, absent clear understanding, do not constitute accord and satisfaction.