Case Name: TERRA TRUCKS, INC. v. Lois WEBER
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1977-05-17
Citations: 346 So. 2d 275
Docket Number: No. 7763
Parties: TERRA TRUCKS, INC. v. Lois WEBER.
Judges: Before SAMUEL, LEMMON and GU-LOTTA, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 346
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
TERRA TRUCKS, INC. v. Lois WEBER.
No. 7763.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
May 17, 1977.
Craig J. Cimo, Gretna, for plaintiff-appel-lee.
Graham, Kiefer & Arceneaux, Louis B. Graham, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
Before SAMUEL, LEMMON and GU-LOTTA, JJ.

Opinion:
SAMUEL, Judge.
Defendant appeals from a judgment condemning her to pay $600 on an open account. She had entered into an oral contract with the plaintiff corporation through its president under which the latter provided fill for two lots owned by her for a total price of $2,200. Defendant paid the sum of $1,600, but refused to pay the $600 balance because of a dispute as to whether the fill provided conformed with that agreed upon.
In this court, as she did in the trial court, appellant defends on the ground of accord and satisfaction. Thus, the sole issue before us is whether defendant's check for $1,600, which was deposited by plaintiff in its bank account, was tendered and accepted in full settlement of the claim. In addition to that check the only evidence contained in the record relative to that issue is the testimony of the defendant and the testimony of plaintiff's president, Salvadore J. Gulino.
Written on the lower left face of the $1,600 check are the words "Fill Pasadena Lots". Defendant testified she was not satisfied with the type of fill supplied by plaintiff, refused to pay the full contract price, and discussed the matter with Mr. Gulino who agreed to settle for $1,600. The Gulino testimony contradicts this. He stated the fill was in accordance with the contract; that although defendant visited the site every other day while the fill was being delivered, spread and graded, she made no complaints until he sent the bill; and that he never agreed to accept $1,600 as full payment.
Although the doctrine of accord and satisfaction is unknown in Louisiana statutory law, the principle is incorporated in Louisiana jurisprudence by case law. For such a defense to be applicable, three elements must be present: (1) a dispute as to the amount owed; (2) a tender by the debt- or in full settlement of the claim; and (3) acceptance of the tender as full payment by the creditor.
While the acceptance and cashing of a check for an amount less than that claimed when tendered as full payment constitutes accord and satisfaction and extinguishes the entire debt, the question of whether or not the check had been tendered and accepted as full payment is a matter of fact.
The trial court obviously accepted the Gulino testimony to the effect that he had not agreed to accept $1,600 as full payment and had not done so. Nor does the inscription "Fill Pasadena Lots" indicate anything other than the debt to which the $1,600 check should be applied; it does not inform the payee that the check was being tendered in full settlement of the entire debt. Under these circumstances, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that the defendant has failed to prove at least the third element necessary for accord and satisfaction, the creditor's acceptance of the tender as full payment.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
. Berger v. Quintero, 170 La. 37, 127 So. 356; Linda Mercantile Corp. v. Bowers, La.App., 230 So.2d 302; Braudaway v. United Equitable Insurance Co., La.App., 208 So.2d 359; 14 Tul.L.Rev. 282, 287.
. Van-Trow Olds Cadillac, Inc. v. Dodwell, La. App., 229 So.2d 154; Miller v. Oak Builders, Inc., La.App., 306 So.2d 449.