R.A. Reither Const., Inc. v. Wheatland Rural Elec. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 05 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83CA0264,83CA0264 |
| Citation | 680 P.2d 1342 |
| Parties | 38 UCC Rep.Serv. 420 R.A. REITHER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHEATLAND RURAL ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION and Miner & Miner Consulting Engineers, Inc., Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees. . II |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Michael J. Kudla, Longmont, for plaintiff-appellant.
Thomas McCaffrey, Thornton, Sherard, Sherard & Johnson, D.N. Sherard, Wheatland, Wyo., for defendant-appellee Wheatland Rural Electric Ass'n.
Houtchens, Houtchens & Daniel, Jerry C. Daniel, Greeley, for defendant-appellee Miner & Miner Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Plaintiff, R.A. Reither Construction, Inc., appeals judgments for defendants, Wheatland Rural Electric Association (WREA) and Miner & Miner Consulting Engineers, Inc., entered in a trial to the court. The court determined that Reither's claim against WREA was barred by an accord and satisfaction and dismissed Reither's claim against Miner & Miner pursuant to C.R.C.P. 41(b)(1). We affirm.
WREA, an electric distribution utility, entered into a contract on October 27, 1978, under which Reither was to construct an electric facility within WREA's system. Miner & Miner were WREA's consulting engineers for the project. While the scheduled completion date for the project under the contract as amended was May 8, 1979, construction was not completed until the fall of 1979. The contract provided for $200 per day liquidated damages.
On December 4, 1979, a WREA agent notified Reither that it intended to retain $16,000 of the $39,863.20 contract price then outstanding in partial payment of the liquidated damages resulting from a 135-day delay in performance of the contract. In February 1980, WREA sent Reither two checks for a total of $23,863.20. The first check bore the notation "Balance"; the second contained the notation "Balance of Contract." On April 11, 1980, WREA's attorney sent Reither a letter stating that WREA claimed $27,000 liquidated damages for 135 days of delay under the $200 per day liquidated damages clause, but that WREA was:
Reither then brought suit against WREA for the full $39,863.20 and against Miner & Miner for $27,000, alleging that Miner & Miner was responsible for any delay in performance. On December 2, 1980, three months after filing suit, Reither deposited the checks with the following restrictive endorsement on each: "Partial payment on contract between Wheatland REA and R.A. Reither Construction, Inc."
At the conclusion of Reither's case, the trial court ruled that Reither's acceptance of the tendered checks operated as an accord and satisfaction which precluded any recovery from WREA. The court further ruled that Reither failed to establish any damages resulting from the conduct of Miner & Miner.
Reither contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings of an accord and satisfaction. We disagree.
An accord is a contract under which an obligee promises to accept a stated performance in satisfaction of the obligor's existing duty. Performance of the accord discharges the original duty. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 287 (1981). Our Supreme Court set forth the elements necessary to establish an accord and satisfaction in Hudson v. American Founders Life Insurance Co., 151 Colo. 54, 377 P.2d 391 (1962) as follows:
"In order to constitute an accord and satisfaction, it is necessary that the money should be offered in full satisfaction of the demand, and be accompanied by such acts and declarations as amount to a condition that the money, if accepted, is accepted in satisfaction; and it must be such that the party to whom it is offered is bound to understand therefrom that if he takes it, he takes it subject to such conditions."
Whether the elements of an accord and satisfaction are present is a question of fact. See Federal Lumber Co. v. Wheeler, 643 P.2d 31 (Colo.1981).
Here, the two February 1980 checks bore notations indicating that they were being offered in satisfaction of the entire outstanding obligation to Reither. The checks were followed by a letter from WREA stating that the checks were offered in full settlement of the dispute and that, in the event that the settlement offer was declined, WREA would attempt to recover $27,000 in liquidated damages. This evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's finding that the requirements for an accord and satisfaction were met.
This result is unaffected by the restrictive endorsement placed on the checks by Reither. Section 4-1-207, C.R.S., states that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Acierno v. Worthy Bros. Pipeline Corp., 009
...Printers, Inc. v. Gus Kroesen, Inc., 134 Cal.App.3d 54, 184 Cal.Rptr. 436 (1982); R.A. Reither Construction, Inc. v. Wheatland Rural Electric Association, Colo.App., 680 P.2d 1342 (1984); County Fire Door Corp. v. C.F. Wooding Co., 202 Conn. 277, 520 A.2d 1028 (1987); Eder v. Yvette B. Gerv......
-
Colo. Coffee Bean Llc v. Peaberry Coffee Inc.
...case, then an appellate court cannot disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court. R.A. Reither Constr., Inc. v. Wheatland Rural Elec. Ass'n, 680 P.2d 1342, 1345 (Colo.App.1984). Plaintiffs assert that we should review the public impact requirement de novo, citing Coors v. Securi......
-
County Fire Door Corp. v. C.F. Wooding Co.
...Printers, Inc., v. Gus Kroesen, Inc., 134 Cal.App.3d 54, 60, 184 Cal.Rptr. 436 (1982); R.A. Reither Construction, Inc., v. Wheatland Rural Electric Assn., 680 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Colo.App.1984); Eder v. Yvette B. Gervey Interiors, Inc., 407 So.2d 312, 314 (Fla.App.1981); Alston v. Insured Cred......
-
Lupia v. Medicredit, Inc.
...of the obligor's existing duty. Performance of the accord discharges the original duty." R.A. Reither Construction, Inc. v. Wheatland Rural Electric Association , 680 P.2d 1342, 1344 (Colo. App. 1984). See also F.D.I.C. v. Inhofe , 16 F.3d 371, 374 (10th Cir. 1994) ("Accord and satisfaction......
-
Beholder Reflections - Part Ii - July 2006 - the Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
...("Higgins") was not in charge because he was responsible for negotiating and selling contracts and promoting company business. Porter, 680 P.2d at 1342. Similarly, the court in Management determined that the employee ("Miller") was not management personnel, as he was largely an "information......
-
Full Satisfaction Checks Under Ucc Revised Article Iii
...Farms, Inc. v. Good Pasture, Inc., 554 S.W.3d 743 (Tex.Civ.App. 1977). 19. R.A. Reither Const., Inc. v. Wheatland Rural Elec. Assn., 680 P.2d 1342 (1984). 20. 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987). The vocal majority view was eloquently expressed in Corbin on Contracts: "It is unfair to the party who w......
-
Tcl - Beholder Reflections - Part Iii - September 2006 - the Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
...Travers's guiding and marketing responsibilities were supervised, and her work product was monitored. Harrison, 577 P.2d at 304; Porter, 680 P.2d at 1342; Atmel, 30 P.3d at 794. Travers had creative latitude with regard to designing the Western website, DVD, brochure, and guide trips. Howev......
-
Tcl - Eye of the Beholder - January 2006 - the Scrivener: Modern Legal Writing
...("Higgins") was not in charge because he was responsible for negotiating and selling contracts and promoting company business. Porter, 680 P.2d at 1342. Similarly, the court in determined that the employee ("Miller") was not management personnel, as he was largely an "information gatherer" ......