Executory Accord

26 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Jon-T Chems., Inc. v. Freeport Chem. Co.
  704 F.2d 1412· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-20 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the force majeure clause excused non-delivery due to weather, the contract's specific terms regarding delivery method overrode the UCC, and the exclusion of a transcript was not an abuse of discretion.
• Cioffe v. Arnold F. Morris & Jet Fingers, Inc.
  676 F.2d 539· 11th Cir.· 1982-05-17 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the trial court correctly struck the award based on an account stated theory because the issue was not tried by consent, but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest on contract damages.
• Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp.
  380 So. 2d 507· Fla. 3d DCA· 1980-02-26 ·cited 35×
  Peter Hannah sued James A. Ryder Corporation to recover over $150,000 in claimed sales commissions on an oral agreement. The trial court granted Ryder summary judgment based on accord and satisfaction, finding Hannah had accepted a $20,000 settlement offer by cashing three checks
• Warner v. Donat Rossignol
  513 F.2d 678· 1st Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a settlement agreement, even if binding, does not irrevocably terminate the original cause of action if the defendant repudiates or materially breaches the settlement terms, allowing the plaintiff to elect to rescind.
• Rudick v. Rudick
  403 So. 2d 1091· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-09-15 ·cited 25×
  Bert Rudick appeals from a trial court order requiring him to pay his ex-wife's remaining attorney's fees and costs, claiming accord and satisfaction. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding that when the ex-wife's counsel cashed checks marked "balance in full" without rese
• May v. Gamble
  14 Fla. 467· Fla.· 1874-04-01 ·cited 23×
  A promissory note is not a payment of a pre-existing debt unless there is an express agreement to receive it in payment or circumstances from which such an agreement can be inferred; here, the new notes were never delivered to or accepted by the plaintiff as payment, and the two
• Jaffe v. Grant
  793 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that it had jurisdiction over the counterclaim and properly gave full faith and credit to the state court's judgment, and that the sanctions imposed were just.
• Lexine Perdue v. ROY Stone Transfer Corp.
  690 F.2d 1091· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to the absence of a right-to-sue letter, arguing the EEOC should have been joined as a party.
• DeVILLIERS v. Atlas Corp.
  360 F.2d 292· 10th Cir.· 1966-05-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that an executory accord, if breached by the debtor, allows the creditor to enforce the original claim, and that a corporate merger triggers Rule 25(c) for substitution of parties.
• Markowitz & Co. v. Toledo Metro. Hous. Auth.
  608 F.2d 699· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-13 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that TMHA breached its lease and sale agreements with Markowitz, and that the damages awarded were proper.
• Eulo v. Deval Aerodynamics, Inc.
  430 F.2d 325· 3d Cir.· 1970-08-07 ·cited 10×
  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.
• United Nations Korean Reconstr. Agency v. Glass Prod. Methods, Inc.
  291 F.2d 168· 2d Cir.· 1961-05-17 ·cited 10×
  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
• Vance v. Scanlon
  121 So. 2d 709· Fla. 2d DCA· 1960-06-24 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court reviewed a decree that dismissed a complaint seeking equitable relief, questioning whether the plaintiff stated a cause for equitable relief after accepting an oral offer for his contract rights.
• Burlington-Rock Island R.R. Co. v. United States
  321 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1963-08-27 ·cited 7×
  A taxpayer on the accrual basis cannot deduct interest that is contingent upon the taxpayer's financial ability to pay, even if the obligation is legally binding, as it is not a fixed and unconditional liability.
• Miller v. Perez
  524 So. 2d 1084· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-27 ·cited 6×
  Real estate broker Alfredo Perez agreed to sell his commission claims to Diversified Centers for reduced amounts specified in a December 12, 1984 letter. When Diversified sent a check for the purchase commission with a limiting endorsement, Perez cashed it but then sued for the f
• Bowater N. Am. Corp. v. Murray Mach., Inc.
  773 F.2d 71· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a dispute over the interpretation of a settlement agreement's terms, after performance has begun, does not constitute a mistake requiring a jury trial, and Rule 52 does not apply to the enforcement of settlement agreements.
• Larsen v. Einar C. Erickson
  549 F.2d 1136· 8th Cir.· 1977-02-01 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the formation of an oral agreement and its effect under Minnesota law.
• City OF Miami Beach v. Fryd Constr. Corp.
  264 So. 2d 13· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-06-27 ·cited 6×
  City of Miami Beach appeals a judgment awarding Fryd Construction Corporation $2,666.45 for aluminum seating allegedly required under a grandstand construction contract. The court reversed, holding that the settlement agreement lacked consideration under the pre-existing duty rul
• Cirrus Design Corp. v. Lauraence A. Sasso
  95 So. 3d 308· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-07-18 ·cited 5×
  Cirrus Design Corporation appeals a trial court order denying its motion to enforce settlement agreements with three plaintiffs who were injured or killed in a private aircraft crash. The court held that the plaintiffs' acceptance of Cirrus's offers of judgment constituted an acc
• Guinness PLC v. Ward
  955 F.2d 875· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 5×
  The Fourth Circuit held that while a post-judgment settlement might not be an explicit defense under the Maryland Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act, a party can be judicially estopped from raising it if they failed to notify the foreign court of the settlement durin
• Dime BOX Petroleum Corp. v. The La. Land & Exploration Co.
  938 F.2d 1144· 10th Cir.· 1991-07-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the operating agreement established a contractual standard of care, not a fiduciary duty, and that Dime Box could not raise new contract claims on appeal.
• Ralston Purina Co. v. McFARLAND
  550 F.2d 967· 4th Cir.· 1977-02-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in limiting discovery and improperly instructed a witness not to answer questions, requiring a remand for further proceedings.
• Hall v. People TO People Health Found., Inc.
  493 F.2d 311· 2d Cir.· 1974-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff abandoned the executory accord by failing to sign the release within a reasonable time, thus no valid settlement agreement existed.
• Zenith Drilling Corp. v. Internorth, Inc.
  869 F.2d 560· 10th Cir.· 1989-03-10
  The court held that InterNorth's failure to pay standby charges constituted a material breach of the executory accord, allowing Zenith to rescind the accord and recover damages under the original contracts. The court also held that Zenith failed to raise a material issue of fact
• Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Stanley Co. of Am.
  185 F.2d 979· 2d Cir.· 1951-01-04
  The court held that the taxpayer realized a taxable gain when it exchanged its own mortgage bonds for a larger face value of another corporation's bonds, as the transaction effectively reduced the taxpayer's liabilities.
• Falk v. Levy
  180 F.2d 562· 2d Cir.· 1950-02-24
  The court held that usurious notes do not extinguish prior valid obligations and that payments on usurious notes can toll the statute of limitations on the original debt.