This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In June 1984, P and D entered into an oral contract whereby P would perform certain interior decorating services for P. P performed and furnishings were purchased by P and delivered to D. Invoices were sent to D. D did not pay. P sued D. The suit was referred to arbitration and P was awarded $15,421 and that D was entitled to the return of the goods, except for a desk. D then sent a letter to D stating that he was returning the specific items that he no longer wanted pursuant to their oral contract, and enclosed a check containing a notation on the back, 'payment in full for any and all claims against Nick DiCello.' P received the merchandise and the check. P then crossed out the notation on the back of the check and inserted the words 'Payment on Account.' P negotiated the check. D filed a motion for summary judgment based on the negotiated check and accord and satisfaction of the underlying debt. The trial court agreed and granted D’s motion. The appeals court affirmed in that R.C. 1301.13 permits a creditor to reserve its rights when cashing a payment-in-full check, the appellate court opined that R.C. 1301.13 (UCC Section 1-207) applies to the sale of goods and not to payment in full checks.' P appealed. P argues Section 1-207 should supersede the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in the 'full payment' or 'conditional check' situation where the payee reserves his or her rights to pursue the balance of the debt alleged to be owed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.