Acierno v. Worthy Brothers Pipeline Corp.
656 A.2d 1085 | Supreme Court of Delaware | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
Worthy Brothers Pipeline accepted a check marked "payment in full" from a contractor but still sued for additional money owed. The Delaware Supreme Court ruled that old common law rules about accord and satisfaction (settling a dispute by accepting partial payment) still apply, even though the UCC has a "reservation of rights" clause. The court sent the case back to trial to determine if all the conditions for accord and satisfaction were actually met. This matters because it affects whether accepting a full-payment check truly ends a dispute or just pauses it.
Key Takeaways
- •A "payment in full" check notation may legally settle a dispute under common law, even if you write "under protest" or reserve your rights on the back
- •Before cashing a full-payment check, verify all elements of accord and satisfaction are present: offer, acceptance, consideration, and intent to settle a genuine dispute
- •If you believe you're owed more money, do not cash a full-payment check without legal advice—cashing it could bar your claim entirely
The Delaware common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction has not been displaced by adoption of § 1-207 UCC.
Frequently Asked Question
If I cash a check marked 'payment in full,' can I still sue for the rest of what I'm owed?
Maybe not. Cashing a full-payment check can legally settle your entire dispute under the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction, even if you write "under protest" on it. The court will look at whether you genuinely disputed the amount, whether the payment was offered to settle that dispute, and whether you accepted it as settlement. Get legal advice before cashing any full-payment check if you believe more is owed.
Related Cases
Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for Western Dist. of Tex.
Forum-selection clauses in federal contracts are enforced through §1404(a) transfer motions, not §1406(a) dismissals, and must be given controlling weight except in exceptional circumstances.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission v. IT-Davy
Sovereign immunity bars a contractor's breach-of-contract suit against a state agency absent express legislative consent; neither the agency's conduct, contract terms, nor general statutes waive immunity from suit.
Martin K. Eby Construction Company, Inc. v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit
A contractor must exhaust administrative remedies established by a regional transportation authority before pursuing breach of contract claims in court, even when the authority lacks governmental immunity from suit.
General Services Commission v. Little-Tex Insulation Co.
The State does not waive sovereign immunity from breach-of-contract suits by accepting contract benefits; Chapter 2260's administrative procedure is the exclusive remedy for such claims.
Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.
A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
An arbitrator's decision is generally not reviewable for errors of fact or law, with limited exceptions for fraud, corruption, exceeding powers, or procedural unfairness.