Legal Question in Credit and Debt Law in Missouri
Retrictive Endorsement on Checks
I typed a restrictive endorsement on the back of a check to a creditor. It read: ''Accepted as full payment for invoice #....''
The creditor ''blacked out'' the restrictive endorsement (it can still be read), deposited (cashed) the check and is now sueing me in small claims court in St. Louis, MO for the balance of $1100.
I sent a letter to the credit with the check explaining why the work he performed (editing a infomercial) was substandard. He was paid $3000. The letter did not refer to the restrictive endorsemnet on the check or state that the check constituted full payment. It did explain why I owed only $3000, not #4100.
Does he have a valid claim even though he altered the restrictive endorsement on the check?
1 Answer from Attorneys
Re: Retrictive Endorsement on Checks
He does not have a valid claim. You created an "accord and satisfaction" when you submitted your check:
From a case on point with yours:
The law on accord and satisfaction has been succinctly stated.
"An accord and satisfaction is a contract for the settlement of a disputed or unliquidated claim for an amount less than that claimed by the creditor. Such contract has been held to have been made in a myriad of cases, where a check has been tendered in payment of an account on express condition that acceptance thereof shall be deemed to be satisfaction in full. There have been repeated rulings that if the creditor cashes the check under such circumstances, an accord and satisfaction results notwithstanding protests on his part. Even his striking out or modification of the condition written on the check has been held to be ineffective. (Citation omitted)." Henderson v. Eagle Express Company, 483 S.W.2d 767, 768 (Mo.App.1972).
See McKee Construction Company v. Stanley Plumbing, 828 S.W.2d 700 Mo. App. SD 1992. You can find this case in the County Law Library.
I hope you find this helpful.