Case Name: Morris J. Frank and Isaac N. Gilbert, Appellants, Respondents, v. Walter J. Vogt, Respondent, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1917-07-13
Citations: 178 A.D. 833
Docket Number: 
Parties: Morris J. Frank and Isaac N. Gilbert, Appellants, Respondents, v. Walter J. Vogt, Respondent, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 178
Pages: 833–835

Head Matter:
Morris J. Frank and Isaac N. Gilbert, Appellants, Respondents, v. Walter J. Vogt, Respondent, Appellant.
First Department,
July 13, 1917.
Contract — accord and satisfaction — acceptance of goods sold — deduction of offset and payment by check for balance.
Where the buyer of goods retained the same he became indebted for the purchase price and did not establish an accord and satisfaction as to a lower price by deducting the amount of an alleged offset because the goods were not up to the agreed quality and by sending a cheek for the balance to the seller who retained the same.
No accord and satisfaction, was established by the transaction aforesaid although the buyer when sending the check wrote that he sent it in full payment.
Laughlin, J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiffs, Morris J. Frank and another, from a determination and order of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 29th day of December, 1916, as amended by an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 19th day of February, 1917, in so far as said determination and order reverses a judgment of the Municipal Court of the City of New York, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District, in plaintiffs’ favor and dismisses the complaint upon the merits.
Appeal by the defendant, Walter J. Vogt, from so much of said determination and order of the Appellate Term as reverses the judgment of the Municipal Court in his favor, upon his counterclaim and dismisses the said counterclaim.
A. 8. Gilbert [Francis Gilbert and Godfrey Cohen with him on the brief], for the plaintiffs.
Morris Blau, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
There was clearly no accord and satisfaction disclosed by the evidence. Defendant-had agreed to purchase merchandise at a fixed price. It was delivered to and retained by him. He thereby became indebted for the purchase price. As against this he claimed an offset because some of the goods were not up to the agreed quality, and this he undertook to deduct from the purchase price, sending plaintiffs a check for the balance which was admittedly due in any event. Plaintiffs retained the check as they were entitled to do, and now sue for the remainder of the purchase price.
That this transaction does not constitute an accord and satisfaction is well established. (Windmuller v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 123 App. Div. 424; Eames Vacuum Brake Co. v. Prosser, 157 N. Y. 289; Laroe v. Sugar Loaf Dairy Co., 180 id. 367; Kleinfelter v. Granger, 136 N. Y. Supp. 485; affd., sub nom. Klinefelter v. Peterson, 152 App. Div. 896.)
That defendant, when he sent the check, wrote that he was sending it as full payment does not affect the question. He could not by paying'an amount admittedly due in any event, foreclose plaintiffs from claiming that more was due, nor yet subject them to the risk of postponing the payment of the whole claim, until defendant's relatively small counterclaim could be judicially liquidated. To hold otherwise would result, in many cases, in permitting a debtor to coerce his creditor into making an unjustified deduction from his bill.
The determination of the Appellate Term is reversed and the judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs, appellants, in this court and the Appellate Term.
Clarke, P. J., Page and Davis, JJ., concurred; Laugh-list, J., dissented.