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

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

A jury returned a verdict in favor of P in his action to recover $4,400 which he claimed was owed under a contract with D. The jury could have found that P agreed to prepare certain mechanical drawings for the defendant for a lump sum payment of $ 1,000. P claimed there was a modification of the agreement substituting an hourly rate for a lump sum payment. D denied any such modification but testified that he agreed to an additional lump sum payment of $500. P sent a defendant a bill for $5,400, representing 235 hours of work at $25 per hour, less the $500 that had already been paid. D testified that before he received the bill, he sent a cover letter and a check for $1,000 bearing the notation 'payment in full for services rendered.' The letter stated the D's position that their 'original deal was for one-time work.' The letter reiterated that the D's check for $ 1,000 represented payment in full and that D had tendered an additional $500 in an attempt to 'appease' P in light of their 'misunderstanding' over the terms of the contract. P deleted the 'payment in full' from the check and deposited it in his account. At trial D requested an instruction on accord and satisfaction, the judge refused. D appealed.

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

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