Evans v. Columbia Intern. Corp.
| Citation | 478 P.2d 785,3 Wn.App. 955 |
| Decision Date | 28 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 361--41086--I,361--41086--I |
| Parties | L. Y. EVANS, d/b/a Evans Machinery Company, Appellant, v. COLUMBIA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Washington |
Page 955
v.
COLUMBIA INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Respondent.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1971.
Bruce D. Brunton, Seattle, for appellant.
Edmund J. Jones, Seattle, for respondent.
JAMES, Chief Judge.
L. Y. Evans is a commission broker who deals in heavy industrial machinery. In 1963 he learned that The Boeing Company had need for a large capacity metal lathe. At that time, Columbia International Corporation was the exclusive selling agent in the United States for Karl Keilinghaus Industriestrasse of Ahlen, Westfalen, West Germany. Keilinghaus manufactured heavy [478 P.2d 786] machinery. In response to Evans' inquiry, Columbia ascertained that Keilinghaus had the apparent capability and was willing to undertake the manufacture of a lathe built to Boeing's specifications.
The negotiations thus initiated by Evans eventually resulted in Boeing's execution of a purchase order to Columbia
Page 956
for a lathe to be manufactured by Keilinghaus at an anticipated cost of $312,750.Thereafter, Evans and Columbia agreed in writing that Evans' commission would be 12 1/2 per cent of the total amount finally paid by Boeing.
The lathe was built by Keilinghaus and eventually accepted by Boeing. The purchase price paid by Boeing was $286,406.25.
Thereafter, Columbia tendered its check in the sum of $14,000 to Evans in full settlement of his claim for a commission. Evans cashed the check but conditioned his endorsement with the following words:
Accepted as partial payment of 12 1/2% Commission due pursuant to that commission agreement dated March 19, 1964, between Evans Machinery Company and Columbia International Corporation and not as payment in full and not as an accord and satisfaction of the known full amount legally due and owing.
The trial judge concluded as a matter of law that the cashing of the ckeck by Evans constituted an accord and satisfaction.
Evans contends that an accord and satisfaction cannot be implied in this case because the amount due him was liquidated and undisputed. His theory of the case is that his commission was earned when the purchase order was signed and that the commission agreement served only to fix the amount.
Columbia contends that at the time it tendered its check in full settlement, there was a genuine dispute as to the amount due Evans and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paopao v. State, Dshs
...PRACTICE § 16.2 (3d ed.2007). An accord and satisfaction is a new contract — a contract complete in itself. Evans v. Columbia Int'l Corp., 3 Wash.App. 955, 957, 478 P.2d 785 (1970). Its enforceability does not depend on the antecedent agreement. N.W. Motors, Ltd. v. James, 118 Wash.2d 294, ......
-
Gleason v. Metro. Mortgage Company, 1521--II
...and Satisfaction § 15 Et seq. (1962). Such an agreement may be either express or implied, Evans v. Columbia Int'l Corp., 3 Wash.App. 955, 478 P.2d 785 (1970), but before the acceptance of a lesser sum than may be owed on a dispute or unliquidated account will give rise to an accord and sati......
-
Oregon Mut. Ins. Co. v. Barton
...169, 171, 665 P.2d 1383 (1983). An accord and satisfaction is a new contract—a contract complete in itself. Evans v. Columbia Int'l Corp., 3 Wash.App. 955, 957, 478 P.2d 785 (1970) (citing 1 AM. JUR.2D Accord and Satisfaction § 12 (1962)). Its enforceability does not depend on the validity ......
-
U.S. Bank National Association v. Whitney, No. 21335-8-III (Wash. App. 12/9/2003), 21335-8-III
...is disputed, the debtor tenders his check in full payment of the debt, and the creditor cashes the check.' Evans v. Columbia Int'l Corp., 3 Wn. App. 955, 957, 478 P.2d 785 (1970). But the court in Evans cites Kibler, 73 Wn.2d 523. Evans, 3 Wn. App. at 957. And Kibler does not establish such......