Case Title: Frangiosa v. Kapoukranidis

Citation: 160 Vt. 237, 627 A.2d 351

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1993-01-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
FRANGIOSA_V_KAPOUKRANIDIS.92-345; 160 Vt. 237; 627 A.2d 351


 NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 92-345


 Joe Frangiosa                                Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      Caledonia Superior Court

 Dimitrios Kapoukranidis                      January Term, 1993



 Alan W. Cheever, J.

 Robert R. Bent of Zuccaro, Willis & Bent, St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff-
    appellant

 William P. Neylon of Swainbank, Morrissette & Neylon, St. Johnsbury, for
    defendant-appellee


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment of the Caledonia
 Superior Court, which held that a check tendered by defendant bearing the
 statement "Paid in Full" constituted an accord and satisfaction upon its
 being cashed by plaintiff.  Because plaintiff clearly reserved his rights
 when he endorsed the check, we reverse.
      Plaintiff provided electrical services to defendant at his restaurant
 business in Lancaster, New Hampshire.  He began work before he offered an
 estimate of its total cost.  After one day at the job, plaintiff estimated
 that the project would cost from $3,000 to $4,000, exclusive of materials.
 A week later, plaintiff advised defendant that the scope of the work was
 growing, and upon its completion he tendered a bill for $8,014.74.
 Defendant told plaintiff he thought the bill should be between $4,000 and
 $5,000, and after an exchange of demands, defendant wrote plaintiff that he
 believed the correct amount was $4,000.  He tendered a check in that amount
 inscribed with the words "Paid in Full."  Plaintiff endorsed the check,
 adding to his endorsement the words "Catamount Electric Endorsed under
 Protest With all Rights and Remedies Reserved."
      Plaintiff brought suit for the unpaid portion of the total bill.  The
 trial court concluded that there was a clear dispute as to the amount of the
 debt, and that the principles enunciated in Gallagher Lumber Co. v. Shapiro,
 137 Vt. 139,