Opinion ID: 761064
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Accord

Text: 16 National argues that we should reverse because the court improperly construed Texas law to conclude that the facts, as found, establish an accord and satisfaction. In support, National points out that Texas law on accord requires that the terms of the accord be clearly communicated, and that the parties unmistakabl[y] agree that acceptance [of less than the full amount due] will constitute satisfaction of the underlying obligation. Appellant's Br. at 8 (quoting Flowers v. Diamond Shamrock Corp., 693 F.2d 1146, 1151 (5th Cir.1982)). National contends that, notwithstanding the broad language by which the RTC agreed to RELEASE, ACQUIT and FOREVER DISCHARGE Borrower and Guarantors ... from any and all claims, demands, obligations, and causes of action of any nature whatsoever relating to or in any way arising out of the Note and the Loan Documents, the fact that the final drafter was unaware of the $100,000 Note precludes its inclusion, absent express mention. 5 National attempts to buttress its position with the undisputed fact that, in the final negotiating stages, the RTC expressly refused to give a blanket release. Thus, National contends that the RTC clearly rejected any accord which covered anything other than the $8.9 million loan. 17 While it is true that the RTC refused to give a blanket release, it did agree to release any claims resulting from the transaction, Finding 18(c), and, moreover, the release it ultimately gave covered any claim relating to or in any way arising out of the $8.9 million Note and associated Loan Documents, 6 Appellant's App. at 50. Thus, for purposes of satisfying the communication required under Texas law, the RTC clearly agreed to release any claims related to the transaction or Project. Accordingly, the district court's findings that the $100,000 was related to the Project compel the conclusion that the Note was released.