4.2-17 Defense - Accord and Satisfaction
New June 1, 2012
The defendant claims that (he/she) does not owe any money to the
plaintiff on the contract because the parties have reached an
accord and satisfaction.
In this case, the defendant claims that (he/she/it) has
(paid to/performed for) <describe> the plaintiff and the
plaintiff has accepted that (payment/performance) in
satisfaction of the defendant’s obligations under the contract.
In order for an accord and satisfaction to occur, there
must be a good faith dispute about the amount that is owed [or
about the existence of a debt] and that the plaintiff must have
understood that the (payment/performance) by the defendant was
made as full satisfaction of the defendant’s obligations under
the original contract.
Therefore, if you find that the defendant offered
the (payment/performance) to fully satisfy (his/her/its) obligations under the
contract and the plaintiff accepted the (payment/performance) with that
understanding, then the defendant owes nothing further to the plaintiff.
The defendant bears the burden of proving accord and satisfaction.
Reference to consideration has been omitted.
The law is that an accord and satisfaction must be supported by
consideration. However, an accord and
satisfaction is sufficiently supported by consideration if it settles a monetary
claim that is unliquidated in amount.
Association Resources, Inc. v.
Wall, 298 Conn. 145, 187
(2010), citing County Fire Door Corp.
v. C.F. Wooding Co., 202
Conn. 277, 282 (1987). In County Fire
Door Corp., the court stated: “It may well be that an accord is enforceable,
even in the absence of consideration, if it is supported by a debtor's
reasonable and foreseeable reliance on a promise by a creditor to forgive the
remainder of an outstanding debt.” Id., 281 n.2.
The charge should refer to consideration only if it is an issue.
Note that County Fire Door Corp., supra, held that when a
creditor knowingly cashed a check explicitly tendered in full
satisfaction of an unliquidated debt, it became bound by the
terms of settlement that the check contained.
Nevertheless, after County Fire Door Corp. was
decided in 1987, the legislature amended its codification of the
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) in 1991 to explicitly exclude
accord and satisfaction claims from General Statutes § 42a-1-2071
and enacted General Statutes § 42a-3-311, which expressly
governs accord and satisfaction claims based on the use of
Public Acts 1991, No. 91-304, §§ 37 and 111.
Accordingly, this charge should not be used for claims
based on the use of an instrument governed by the UCC.
In 2005, § 42a-1-207 was repealed.
See Public Acts 2005, No. 05-109.