ROBERT T. MILLER, D/B/A LANDSCAPERS ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTORS, APPELLANT,
v.
WESTON E. JUNG AND JANICE L. JUNG, HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLEES
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.
A landscaper cashed a check for less than the amount billed, with conditions printed and written on the check regarding full payment and waiver of liens. The court held that under Florida's Uniform Commercial Code Section 671.207, the payee could negotiate the check with a typed reservation of rights without prior notification to the drawer, thus preserving his right to claim the balance due.
Under Florida Statutes Section 671.207 (Uniform Commercial Code § 1-207), a party may negotiate a conditioned check with explicit reservation of rights without prior notification to the drawer, thereby preserving the right to demand any balance due at a later time.
[1] A party who assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party with explicit reservation of rights does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved.
[2] Words such as "without prejudice," "under protest," or "with reservation of all their rights" are sufficient to reserve rights under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A party who with explicit reservation of rights ... assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved.”
This quote from Florida Statutes Section 671.207 establishes the core principle that explicit reservations of rights on a check preserve the payee's ability to demand the balance due.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert Miller, a landscaper, submitted a bill to the Jungs. The Jungs sent a check for less than the stated amount with 'LANDSCAPING PAID IN FULL' pri…
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 Accord And Satisfaction cases and more on FLexlaw
OTT, Judge.
A landscaper received a check for an amount less than the account stated on his bill. The check had the words “LANDSCAPING PAID IN FULL” printed on the bottom left corner. On the top of the reverse side were handwritten the words “cashing of this check constitutes release and waiver of any lien.” Below this condition the payee typed the words “negotiated by named payees under protest and with reservation of all their rights” and negotiated the check.
The trial court ruled that receipt of a check so conditioned on its face required the payee to notify the drawer of the check that his acceptance was under protest or reservation of rights prior to negotiation.
We hold that Section 671.207, Florida Statutes (1977) precludes the conclusion reached by the trial court.
That section, in pertinent part, provides as follows:
Performance of acceptance under reservation of rights. A party who with explicit reservation of rights ... assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice,” “under protest” or the like are sufficient.
Section 671.207 is a part of the Uniform Commercial Code. The 1972 official text comments to § 1-207, promulgated as an aid to construction by the American Law Institute and National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws, provides in part that:
The section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute, by adopting the mercantile device of going ahead with delivery, acceptance, or payment “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reserve,” “with reservation of all our rights,” and the like. All of these phrases completely reserve all rights within the meaning of this section. [Emphasis supplied.]
To require actual notification prior to negotiation would eviscerate the purpose of the section, which should allow a party to negotiate checks so conditioned on their face without gambling with his right to demand the balance due at a later time. Section 671.207, Florida Statutes (1977) in this instance frees up or minimizes impediments to the flow of commercial paper while reserving the rights of the immediate parties.
So far as our research shows this issue has not been directly addressed by an appellate court in Florida. Other courts, however, have reached a similar conclusion. See Scholl v. Tallman, 247 N.W. 2d 490 (S.D.1976); Baillie Lumber Co., Inc. v. Kincaid Carolina Corp., 4 N.C.App. 342, 167 S.E. 2d 85 (1969).
Accordingly, the trial court’s order granting a directed verdict is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. This decision is not intended to foreclose consideration of all the surrounding facts and circumstances in determining whether or not the parties, in fact, reached an accord and satisfaction or full settlement.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., and BOARD-MAN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…Because of our holding that, under established principles, the issue of whether an accord and satisfaction arose must be submitted to a jury, we deem it inappropriate to consider whether we agree with the second district’s holding in Miller v. Jung, 361 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978) that § 1-207 of the U.C.C., § 671.-207, Fla.Stat. (1977) has effected a complete reversal of the common law rule cited supra; so that a payee who cashes a check tendered in full payment may now avoid an accord and satisfaction by…
-
Yelen v. Cindy's, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…an, Keefe & Co. v. Howell, 92 Fla. 295, 109 So. 593 (1926); Pino v. Lopez, 361 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); MeGehee v. Mata, 330 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976). Cf., Hannah v. James A. Ryder Corp., 380 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Miller v. Jung, 361 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). Affirmed. . The “release” mentioned in and mailed with the letter, appeared as follows: In consideration of the payment of Six Thousand Dollars and 00/100 ($6,000.00) by [*1235] Cindy’s, Inc. (Cindy’s) to Mitchell A. Yelen, as…
-
Eder v. Yvette B. Gervey Interiors, Inc., 407 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…words as “without prejudice,” “under protest” or the like are sufficient. Neither precedent nor commentary is consistent in the treatment of this issue. Illustrative are Yelen v. Cindy’s, Inc., 386 So. 2d 1234 (Fla.3d DCA 1980) and Miller v. Jung, 361 So. 2d 788 (Fla.2d DCA 1978). In Yelen, the restrictive endorsement: “Received as partial agreement without prejudice, under protest, with full exclusive reservation of rights” was held insufficient to defeat the payor’s clear expressed intention that acceptan…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence