FASHION MART BUILDING, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERMAN A. THOMAS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment that retention of a check marked as payment in full constituted an accord and satisfaction, finding the trial judge's factual determinations regarding the amount due, plaintiff's intent, and reasonableness of retention were supported by competent evidence.
Retention of a check tendered as full payment of a disputed amount constitutes an accord and satisfaction when the trial court finds, based on competent evidence, that the creditor accepted it with knowledge of the condition.
[1] Whether an accord and satisfaction exists ordinarily presents a question of fact regarding the parties' intent, to be determined by the trial court based on the evidence…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFashion Mart Building, Inc. delivered a check to Herman A. Thomas, Inc. marked as payment in full of a disputed obligation. The trial court found the …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conditional Payments cases and more on FLexlaw
Fashion Mart Building, Inc., defendant below, appeals from an adverse final judgment, as amended, which was rendered after a non-jury trial.
Defendant’s first point for reversal states:
“Where there is a dispute as to an amount due and the debtor delivers a check to the creditor upon the explicit condition that the check is in full payment of the obligation, does the retention of such check by the creditor constitute an accord and satisfaction.”
Here, the amount due the plaintiff, the intention of the plaintiff and the reasonableness of the time plaintiff retained the check from the defendant were disputed matters which were determined by the trier of facts.
“Whether there is an accord and satisfaction ordinarily involves a pure question *732of intention, which is, as a rule, a question of fact.” 1 Fla.Jur. Accord and Satisfaction, § 3, p. 71. See also Patten v. Lynett, 133 App.Div. 746, 118 N.Y.S. 185 (1909); and American National Bank v. Bradford, 28 Tenn.App. 239, 188 S.W.2d 971 (1945). We find no error on this point.
Defendant’s remaining points for reversal relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support certain findings made by the trial judge. A review of the conflicting testimony and evidence reflects sufficient, competent and substantial evidence in the record on appeal to sustain such findings. The final judgment is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fashion Mart Bldg., Inc. v. Herman A. Thomas, Inc., 238 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 1970)…Certiorari denied. 234 So. 2d 731. ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.…