Case Name: WINDMULLER et al. v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-01-10
Citations: 107 N.Y.S. 1095
Docket Number: 
Parties: WINDMULLER et al. v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 107
Pages: 1095–1097

Head Matter:
WINDMULLER et al. v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 10, 1908.)
Accobd and Satisfaction—Retention of Check—Effect.
Where the buyer of rubber sent the sellers a check “in settlement” of the invoice, stating that the balance was ascertained under the salesman’s warranty that the rubber would not shrink more than 40 per cent., the sellers’ retention of the check was not an accord and satisfaction, where they credited, the buyer’s account with the amount of the check and in acknowledging receipt thereof stated that a specified sum remained due, and demanded payment thereof; they denying, before and after receiving the check, that such warranty was made.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 8, Accord and Satisfaction, §§ 88-91.]
Laughlin, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Trial Term.
Action by Louis Windmuller and others against the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, and from an order denying a new trial, plaintiffs appeal. Reversed, and new trial granted.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Cephas Brainerd, for appellants.
George D. Beattys, for respondent.

Opinion:
SCOTT, J.
The plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint. There is no dispute as to the facts, the evidence being wholly documentary, and the only question is whether the receipt and retention by plaintiffs of a check sent them by defendant constituted an accord and satisfaction. The action was for a balance claimed to be due on a sale of Borneo rubber by plaintiffs to defendant. The answer alleges that prior to the sale plaintiffs warranted and represented that the rubber, in being washed, dried, and shrunk, would not shrink more than 40 per cent, of the net weight, and further agreed that, if the said" rubber did shrink more than 40 per cent., defendant could settle and pay for the rubber at a net price of 70 cents per pound dry weight. It was further alleged that plaintiffs furnished defendant, before the sale, with a special sample of the rubber taken from the bulk of the goods, with which sample the plaintiffs agreed said rubber should in all respects be equal; that defendants purchased the rubber, relying on said representations and sample, but that the rubber delivered did not correspond with the sample, and was not as represented and warranted, in that in the process of washing, drying, and breaking down it shrunk in weight nearly 53 per cent., and, being worth, at 70 cents per pound net weight, $231.43 less than it would have been worth at 42 cents per pound, if it had been as represented. The plaintiffs, in reply, admit delivering a sample of rubber prior to the sale, but deny any warranty or representations, and the defendant's reliance thereon, and allege that in purchasing the rubber the defendant relied wholly upon its own examination of the sample.
The action is for the sum of $231.43, being the difference between the price of the rubber at 43 cents per pound, the agreed price, and 70 cents per pound, dry weight. The rubber was shipped on January 13, 1904, and was received by defendant about January 30,1904; for on that date defendants wrote a letter acknowledging the receipt and promising to mail a check on the following Friday. On January 31st defendants again wrote, saying that they had been informed by the factory superintendent that the quality of the rubber was very poor, and that they should, before paying for the same, wait for the shrinkage. On January 33 d plaintiffs replied, declining to admit any claim on the rubber and asking for a prompt remittance. On January 30, 1904, defendants wrote inclosing a check for $800, and saying that they would remit balance as soon as the shrinkage on the rubber had been ascertained. On February 1, 1904, plaintiffs wrote acknowledging the receipt of the check for $800, and stating that that payment left a balance due of $393.67. They also specifically declared that:
"The arrangement regarding the shrinkage ceased with your examination of the large sample of about eight pounds sent on -the 30th of December and your definite order for one ton on the 7th of January at 42 cents per pound.'
On February 6, 1904, defendants wrote inclosing check for $63.35 "in settlement of your invoice of January 11th," and then explained how this sum was arrived at, as follows:
"When this rubber was purchased from your representative, he guaranteed that the rubber would not have a shrinkage of more than 40 per cent., or in other words the rubber would not cost us more than 70 cents per pound dry weight. The rubber weighed up 1,230 pounds dry weight, at 70 cents would be $861. We have already paid you $800, and the check inclosed covers balance due on this invoice, also cartage of $1.25."
To this letter plaintiffs replied at once, acknowledging the receipt of the check for $63.35, with which they credited defendants' account, and stating that there still remained due $331.43, of which they demanded payment. They again denied that there had been any warranty or representations. Upon evidence of this transaction the court below decided that the receipt and retention of the check for $63.35 constituted an accord and satisfaction, and dismissed the complaint. This, as we think, was erroneous. "Ordinarily the retention of a check inclosed in a letter which refers to the amount as the balance due on accounts between parties will not be held to be an accord and satisfaction, so as to bar an action for the balance due. It is only in cases where a dispute has arisen between the parties as to the amount due, and a check is tendered on oné side in full satisfaction of the matter in controversy, that the other party will be deemed to have acquiesced in the amount offered by an acceptance and retention of the check." Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser, 157 N. Y. 389-300, 51 N. E. 986, 989. In the present case the only controversy was as to the alleged warranty, and the only question between the parties was as to whether there had been such a warranty or not. No check was ever sent in settlement of that controversy, and as to it there was, therefore, no accord and satisfaction. The sum of $63.35, for which a check was sent, was not in settlement of any controversy; for the defendants admittedly owed that amount in any event, and as to it there was no controversy whatever. The case falls squarely within the rule of Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser, supra, and Laroe v. Sugar Loaf Dairy Co., 180 N. Y. 367, 73 N. E. 61. It differs essentially from cases in which the plaintiff's claim was for an unliquidated amount, and the payment was in terms made in full settlement. In the present case there is no question as to the amounts. Upon the only question in controversy between the parties there was no attempt or intention to pay anything in satisfaction,-and hence there could be no accord. That controversy remained open, and it is evident that both parties so understood it.
Judgment and order reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM and CLARKE, JJ., concur.