Sprinkmann Sons Corp. v. Bishopric Products Co., 71-C-368.
Decision Date | 03 February 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 71-C-368.,71-C-368. |
Parties | SPRINKMANN SONS CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, Plaintiff, v. The BISHOPRIC PRODUCTS COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Michael, Best & Friedrich by David R. Olson and F. William Haberman, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Foley & Lardner, by John R. Collins and James R. Clark, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendant.
DECISION and ORDER
The defendant has moved for summary judgment contending that there has been an accord and satisfaction between the parties. This contention arises from the fact that on January 14, 1971 the defendant sent a check in the amount of $26,656.90, payable to the plaintiff. On the back of the check appeared the following:
"In full and final consideration for the complete release and discharge of the Bishopric Products Company from all claims, demands, actions and from all liability of whatever nature, kind or description now existing or which may hereafter arise from or out of the insulation of 4 tanks at the Miller Brewing Company, North 31st and West Wells Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin."
The plaintiff subsequently endorsed the aforesaid check and wrote a letter to the defendant containing the following:
The defendant relies on Hanz Trucking, Inc. v. Harris Brothers Company, 29 Wis.2d 254, 263, 138 N.W.2d 238 (1965). The plaintiff, on the other hand, urges that there were two separate and distinct claims which it had against the defendant, and that the acceptance of payment on the one claim did not constitute an accord and satisfaction as to the other claim. Weidner v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 130 Wis. 10, 110 N.W. 246 (1906); Schulz Co. v. Gether, 183 Wis. 491, 198 N.W. 433 (1924).
I am not persuaded that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Flambeau Products Corp. v. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc.
...of payment in full on one claim did not constitute an accord and satisfaction as to the other claim. Sprinkmann Sons Corp. v. Bishopric Prods. Co., 340 F.Supp. 148, 149 (E.D.Wis.1972). See also 1 Restatement (Second), Contracts sec. 74, comment c, p. 186 (1979). Perhaps Weidner can best be ......
-
Van Sistine v. Tollard
...not to accept the offer. Plaintiff therefore contends that no accord and satisfaction arose, citing Sprinkmann Sons Corp. v. Bishopric Products Co., 340 F.Supp. 148 (E.D.Wis.1972), which held that an issue continued to exist as to whether payment under somewhat similar circumstances 2 const......