Lovorn v. Iron Woods Products Corp.
| Decision Date | 23 August 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 50518,50518 |
| Citation | 362 So.2d 196 |
| Parties | William H. LOVORN, d/b/a Lovorn Plywood Sales v. IRON WOOD PRODUCTS CORPORATION. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
H. A. Courtney, Jackson, for appellant.
Binder & Howell, William B. Kirksey, Jackson, for appellee.
Before SMITH, P. J., and BROOM, and LEE, JJ.
BROOM, Justice, for the Court:
Accord and satisfaction based upon a check (with a restrictive endorsement thereon) negotiated by appellant Lovorn was successfully asserted by appellee, Iron Wood Products Corporation (Iron Wood herein) in the lower (circuit) court. Lovorn sued Iron Wood first in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, where he received a judgment. Iron Wood appealed to the Circuit Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County which reversed, holding that Lovorn's acceptance of the check containing the restrictive endorsement constituted an accord and satisfaction. We affirm.
Lovorn had been a sales representative for Iron Wood several years when a dispute developed between them as to amount of commissions owed Lovorn by Iron Wood. After considerable correspondence between the parties, Iron Wood tendered to Lovorn two checks dated March 10, 1976, one in the amount of $7,707.87 and the other in the amount of $664.93. The former contained the following statement on the reverse side:
Endorsement of this check constitutes payment in full and without recourse for the period ending December 27, 1975.
The latter check contained the following words on the back:
Endorsement constitutes acceptance of final payment through the first four weeks of January ending January 24.
Lovorn received and endorsed the check for $7,707.87, but returned to Iron Wood the check for $664.93.
DID THE CIRCUIT COURT CORRECTLY RULE THAT LOVORN'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,707.87 CONSTITUTES AN ACCORD AND SATISFACTION: The four basic conditions of an accord and satisfaction are: (1) something of value offered in full satisfaction of demand; (2) accompanied by acts and declarations as amount to a condition that if the thing offered is accepted, it is accepted in satisfaction; (3) the party offering the thing of value is bound to understand that if he takes it, he takes subject to such conditions; and (4) the party actually does accept the item. Cooper & Rock v. Yazoo & M.V.R.R., 82 Miss. 634, 35 So. 162 (1903).
We point out that the language of the restrictive endorsement on the reverse side of the check in question could arguably be considered ambiguous and interpreted to mean that it covered commissions owed only for a period of time ending December 27, 1975, and would not necessarily be related to some period earlier than the pay period ending on that date. However, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
ROYER HOMES OF MS., INC. v. Chandeleur Homes, Inc.
...Bank, 726 So.2d 578, 589 (Miss.1998); Alexander v. Tri-County Coop. (AAL), 609 So.2d 401, 404-05 (Miss.1992); Lovorn v. Iron Woods Prods. Corp., 362 So.2d 196, 197 (Miss.1978). In Cook v. Bowie, 448 So.2d 286 (Miss.1984), this Court further noted that an accord and satisfaction "must have a......
-
Wallace v. United Mississippi Bank, 96-CA-00383-SCT.
...party actually does accept the item. Alexander v. Tri-County Coop. (AAL), 609 So.2d 401, 404-05 (Miss. 1992); Lovorn v. Iron Woods Prods. Corp., 362 So.2d 196, 197 (Miss.1978). In Cook v. Bowie, 448 So.2d 286 (Miss.1984), this Court further noted that an accord and satisfaction "must have a......
-
Singing River Mall Co. v. Mark Fields, Inc.
...and (4) the party actually does accept the item. Cook v. Bowie, 448 So.2d 286, 287 (Miss.1984), (citing Lovorn v. Iron Wood Products Corp., 362 So.2d 196, 197 (1978)); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Sarrett, 419 So.2d 1332, 1334-35 (Miss.1982). An agreement of accord and satisfaction "must have al......
-
Waller Bros., Inc. v. Exxon Corp.
...that if he takes it, he takes subject to such conditions; and (4) the party actually does accept the item. Lovorn v. Iron Woods Products Corp., 362 So.2d 196, 197 (Miss.1978). The Fifth Circuit in Woods-Tucker Leasing Corp. of Georgia v. Kellum, 641 F.2d 210, 213-14 (5th Cir. 1981) defined ......