Accord and Satisfaction

A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim. A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.

A claim is not discharged if either of the following applies: The claimant, if an organization, proves that within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place, and the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place; the claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within ninety days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. (C.G.S.A. § 42a-3-311)

Accord and satisfaction is a special defense to collection claims in Connecticut, existing under both common law and Connecticut statute. To establish a common law defense of accord and satisfaction, a defendant must plead that: (1) there was a good faith dispute about an amount claimed to be owed; (2) a contract of accord was negotiated to settle the claim; (3) the contract was supported by consideration; and (4) the contract was performed. See Prem, Inc. v. Agababian, 2004 WL 2663982 (Conn. Super. 2004); Mehler v. Stanley, 2000 WL 743683, 4 (Conn. Super. 2000).

See e.g., Auto Glass Exp., Inc. v. Hanover Ins. Co., 2004 WL 2222844, 54 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1069, 37 Conn. L. Rptr. 871 (Conn. Super. 2004) (defense of accord and satisfaction established where checks for disputed insurance claims were unconditionally cashed, and the checks were accompanied by stubs characterizing the payments as fair, reasonable or customary and in accordance with written announcements of the payor's reimbursement rates); see also Newman and Partners v. CFC Construction Ltd., 236 Conn. 750, 765 (1996) (When a party negotiates a check clearly tendered as full satisfaction of an unliquidated debt, that party "cannot disown any condition upon which the check has been tendered.")