439 P.2d 416 (1968)
The harvester was hired by the farmer to harvest his wheat crop. There was no agreement on the price to be paid. The harvester sent the farmer a bill. The farmer sent a check to the harvester, but for less than the harvester claimed was owed. The harvester cashed the check without noticing that the check read in fine print: "By endorsement this check when paid is accepted in full payment of the following account." The harvester brought an action against the farmer. The trial court dismissed the action based on accord and satisfaction.
- The court reversed and held that in order for there to have been an accord and satisfaction, there had to have been a meeting of the minds.
- The letter itself does not state that the check is sent in full payment and because there were no conditions attached to the acceptance of the check, the letter was not an offer of an accord.
- There was nothing on the check to indicate that the language was particularly applicable to the harvester's claim.
The court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.
Suggested law school course materials, hornbooks, and guides for Contract Law
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.