CO Code § 4-1-308 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 1 - General Provisions|Part 3 - Territorial Applicability and General Rules|§ 4-1-308. Performance or Acceptance Under Reservation of Rights

  A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as “without prejudice”, “under protest”, or the like are sufficient.    Subsection (a) of this section does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.     History. Source: L. 2006: Entire article R&RE, p. 468, § 1, effective September 1.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 4-1-207 as it existed prior to 2006.   OFFICIAL COMMENT   Source: Former Section 1-207.   Changes from former law: This section is identical to former UCC Section 1-207.   1. This section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute, by adopting the mercantile device of going ahead with delivery, acceptance, or payment “without prejudice,” “under protest,” “under reserve,” “with reservation of all our rights,” and the like. All of these phrases completely reserve all rights within the meaning of this section. The section therefore contemplates that limited as well as general reservations and acceptance by a party may be made “subject to satisfaction of our purchaser,” “subject to acceptance by our customers,” or the like.   2. This section does not add any new requirement of language of reservation where not already required by law, but merely provides a specific measure on which a party can rely as that party makes or concurs in any interim adjustment in the course of performance. It does not affect or impair the provisions of this Act such as those under which the buyer's remedies for defect survive acceptance without being expressly claimed if notice of the defects is given within a reasonable time. Nor does it disturb the policy of those cases which restrict the effect of a waiver of a defect to reasonable limits under the circumstances, even though no such reservation is expressed.   The section is not addressed to the creation or loss of remedies in the ordinary course of performance but rather to a method of procedure where one party is claiming as of right something which the other believes to be unwarranted.   3. Subsection (b) states that this section does not apply to an accord and satisfaction. Section 3-311 governs if an accord and satisfaction is attempted by tender of a negotiable instrument as stated in that section. If Section 3-311 does not apply, the issue of whether an accord and satisfaction has been effected is determined by the law of contract. Whether or not Section 3-311 applies, this section has no application to an accord and satisfaction.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, "UCC Section 1-207 on ‘Full Payment' Checks: Lawyers Beware", see 11 Colo. Law. 2584 .   Annotator's note. Since § 4-1-308 is similar to § 4-1-207 as it existed prior to the 2006 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing that provision have been included in the annotations to this section.   This section does not alter the law of accord and satisfaction. If a check is tendered as full satisfaction of an obligation, acceptance and negotiation of the check by the obligee discharges the underlying obligation notwithstanding a restrictive endorsement made by the obligee. R.A. Reither Const. Co. v. Wheatland Rural Elec. Ass'n, 680 P.2d 1342 (Colo. App. 1984); Anderson v. Rosebrook, 737 P.2d 417 (Colo. 1987).   Plaintiff landowner who promised performance “under protest” by letter from his attorney to the defendants and then later discharged a note and deed of trust without protest at closing, did not relinquish his rights having complied with the plain language of this section by protesting before performance. Margason v. Roberts, 919 P.2d 818 (Colo. App. 1995).   As plaintiff was not required to renew his protest at closing, so any reliance defendants placed on plaintiff's silence was unreasonable. Margason v. Roberts, 919 P.2d 818 (Colo. App. 1995).