@Minato08 wrote:Sigh, here we go with the town crier trying to assert himself. If you don't understand something, just say so. There's no need to try to be insulting. 1-207 is not the safe harbor clause you spoke of by the way. You conveniently ignore that you're wrong just to force an argument.
This is not an accord and satisfaction. Look up that definition, wikipedia has a nice simple one for you. This is a separate agreement. You may not know this, because there's no google page spoon feeding it to you, but a properly written contract can circumvent statute so long as it is not prohibited by statute. Additionally, you don't seem to understand the "why" behind what you read, which is key in truly understanding legal matters.
Although your foot is already in your mouth, 1-207 doesn't apply here for two reasons:
1. There are no rights to reserve. When you understand that, you'll understand that if you get paid all of what is owed to you, there is nothing to pursue. The fact that this is not an accord and satisfaction is relevant here. The purpose behind that is to pursue the rest of what is owed to you.
2. I already explained to you that this is better understood as an offer and acceptance. The offer was voided if any rights were reserved.
Your blanket application of the law, as well as your outstanding copy-paste ability, illustrates your status as an armchair lawyer. Please stop pretending. You're clearly missing the issue altogether.
This forum is for people seeking help, not for watching unqualified persons beat their chest about the forums and feign legal expertise. As it stands, you're doing more harm than good. If you find that it's your calling, go ahead and take the LSAT and go to law school and put something behind what you say. That way you can be more helpful, instead of wasting everyone's time.
Although I've shown you twice that you're clearly wrong, I'm sure you'll come back with another delusional response about something else completely irrelevant. Maybe the next one will invoke the Rule Against Perpetuities.
Nice armchair quarterbacking. I surely hope just because you can use Google and read an article about, say, brain surgery you will not try to tell us you are a brain surgeon.
By definition accord and satisfaction is a new contractual obligation. However,since you either missed first year contract law or, more likely, Google Law School did not offer it, not only doesn't Wikipedia replace a basic understanding of the law, it is not recognized as the ultimate legal resource -- well, to you armchair quarterbacks it may. 
The legal standard (i.e. not Wikipedia) of an accord and satisfaction is that the parties agree to give and accept something in settlement of a claim. Contrary to what you got from Google Law School, a claim is not limited to the amount of money owed, but also conditions, rights and obligations surrounding that claim. Again, this is what we learn in a real law school.
Unless you actually are a member of the bar (highly unlikely) and somehow get appointed to the NY State Court of Appeals and manage to overturn Horn, you are only trying to confuse people with your uneducated opinion of what you think the law schould be and, in effect, misleading people here who may get burned when they try your stunt.
Seriously, it's great that both of you love to argue, but it seems that some of what you are saying can be construed as personal insults. I, for one, have to breathe deeply when reading the lawyerly opinions on here so as to not be offended, because while it's very helpful to have a technical answer to a question, it can also *seem* harsh. Plus, while the law is the law, it is my understanding that a large part of the job for lawyers and judges is to argue over what any individual statute or precedent MEANS. There's room for interpretation, there's spirit vs. letter of the law, etc. You want to see this board erupt? Mention that you think cell phone debt has a 2 year Federal SoL based on some law about telecommunication and radio or whatever. There's plenty of argument back and forth on that one. Minato, thank you for sharing your method. 06, thank you for pointing out that it isn't necessarily 100% ironclad or safe.
Starting Score: EQ 583 TU04 619 EX 592 (lender pull) 2010An accord & satisfaction is not exclusive to instances where one pays less than the amount owed. Nor do you somehow magically create a new contract by unilaterally changing the terms of the first. Again, simple first year.
In the vast majority of states, a restrictive endorsement is legally effective when:
1. You already have an agreement with the other party to do something and your restrictive endorsement serves only to reiterate that agreement;
2. You have a good faith dispute over the amount owed and the other party has been previously made aware of that.
In New York a creditor can negate a restrictive endorsement simply by adding terms such as "under protest" or "without prejudice." The Horn court never tailored their opinion to state that a reservation of rights was only available when payment was for less than the total amount due. For those challenged by legal terminology, the Horn court simply ruled that in general acceptance of the amount of the check under a reservation of rights fails to enter an accord and satisfaction, much less a new contractual agreement. That UCC Section 1-207 as liberally construed is applicable. Again, for those with limited understanding, a reservation of rights can negate a restrictive endorsement when the amount tendered is less than the amount due or when the terms of the restrictive endorsement fundamentally alter the terms of the contract for which that payment is due.
If you have a CA that verbally agrees to a PFD, then a restrictive endorsement would serve simply to reaffirm that agreement and the CA would be bound to perform. This is hardly a groundbreaking concept. Otherwise, the CA can accept and negotiate the check safely ignoring the additional terms you wish to impose. It really is that simple. That some creditors may just chose to comply in order to avoid entertaining frivolous further drivel is a very real possibility, but not a legal requirement. With that in mind, one needs to choose their battles wisely. The odds may be in your favor if dealing with your average unsophisticated JDB or CA. Try it with debts for elevated amounts with, say, BOA, CrapOne or Chase and you'll likely find yourself really SOL. Don't try the PFD stunt with amounts that you otherwise can't afford to pay without getting a deletion.
You also have to consider other factors. Some creditors explicitly state in the cardholder agreement and / or on your monthly statement that they expressly disavow payments with restrictive endorsements unless sent in a specific manner.
Dubious legal skills aside, use common sense. Believing that a creditor must delete (or provide access to the space shuttle, a starring role on Sesame Street or their first male-born child) just because you were clever enough to place a restrictive endorsement on a check is akin to finding credible HSN or PTL Club calims to be able to cure cancer with two M&M's and a bottle of grape juice -- equally as absurd as the claim that lack of personal jurisdiction cannot necessitate a court to vacate a judgment.
Grape juice plus 2 M&Ms sounds really really gross. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY!
Dubious legal skills aside, use common sense. Believing that a creditor must delete (or provide access to the space shuttle, a starring role on Sesame Street or their first male-born child) just because you were clever enough to place a restrictive endorsement on a check is akin to finding credible HSN or PTL Club calims to be able to cure cancer with two M&M's and a bottle of grape juice -- equally as absurd as the claim that lack of personal jurisdiction cannot necessitate a court to vacate a judgment.
@mauve wrote:Grape juice plus 2 M&Ms sounds really really gross. THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER WAY!
Dubious legal skills aside, use common sense. Believing that a creditor must delete (or provide access to the space shuttle, a starring role on Sesame Street or their first male-born child) just because you were clever enough to place a restrictive endorsement on a check is akin to finding credible HSN or PTL Club calims to be able to cure cancer with two M&M's and a bottle of grape juice -- equally as absurd as the claim that lack of personal jurisdiction cannot necessitate a court to vacate a judgment.
Orange juice?