Defendants contend it was not until they received a written copy of the settlement agreement and consulted with a North Carolina State University staff attorney that they understood the legal meaning of indemnification. Defendants contend they never accepted compensation from plaintiff because they refused to cash the checks tendered by him and accepted by their original attorney. Defendants retained a new attorney who returned the non-negotiated checks to plaintiff's attorney in October 1993, eight months after the first check had been issued and received by defendants' original attorney. Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to N.C.R. Civ. P. 56 and in January 1994, at the conclusion of a hearing held on the motion, summary judgment was granted.
Defendants appeal from that judgment.
The issue for this Court is whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff when it found that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to accord and satisfaction. We hold summary judgment was proper and therefore affirm the trial court's judgment. Id. Plaintiff contends there is no genuine issue of material fact with respect to an accord and satisfaction between the parties and, therefore, he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The accord is the agreement, and the satisfaction is the execution or performance of such agreement. Agreements are reached by an offer by one party and an acceptance by the other . . .