Satisfaction Of Settlement Agreement

If the case has been tried and the judgment has been rendered and is too satisfied, the applicant should not be entitled to sue another simultaneous trecksor in the same case. The entire loss will have been assessed and quantified, and after the payment, all of its debt would be exhausted. This result appears to be consistent with the position established in Scotland. At Balfour v. Baird – Sons 1959 p.C. 64, a former employer was a steel trainer for pneumoconiosis. He then attempted to sue another of his employers, who also allegedly caused his pneumoconiosis contractions, and explained that he had only partially received damages during the previous proceeding and that he had now tried to recover the balance from the other employer. His assertion failed. It was found that a court`s invitation to give him full satisfaction with the total loss and damage he suffered and a remedy decision that was an end. The damage was no longer present. Controversy over the payment of the debt on the basis of agreement and satisfaction may arise when a debt or delay is invoked as a partial payment of the liquidated and undisputed debt. An initially liquidated claim is not liquidated if, as a result of a counterclaim or compensation, the amount actually owed on the balance between the parties has been questioned.

Under these conditions, an agreement and satisfaction may result from the payment of less than that of the creditor, even if the amount is not greater than the balance granted. Thus, a debt liquidated by a creditor is not liquidated, “… if the debtor makes a claim or compensation in good faith and, in this case, it may result from the payment of less than the creditor`s debt and the amount that the debtor recognizes as due. In H.L. “Brownie” Choate, Inc. v. Southland Drilling Co., Inc., 441 S.W.2d 672 (Tex). Civ. App.

San Antonio 1969), the complaining creditor, who was the service provider for the defendant debtor, caused damage to the defendant`s drilling rig. In accordance with its current practice, the defendant recovered the amount of the damage by deducting it from the amount it owed the applicant for the services provided. The applicant filed an appeal to recover the amount deducted. The court found that “… if the amount owed was disputed and the debtor issued a cheque below the amount requested by the creditor, while expressing its intention that the cheque be offered in full settlement, the withholding and recovery of the cheque by the creditor was considered an acceptance of the offer, and such an act of the creditor was considered to be a full satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the applicant`s acceptance of a lesser amount constituted an agreement and satisfaction with the debt. The majority of jurisdictions follow this view, although there is a contrary power. See B. Mifflin Hood Co. v.

Lichter, 106 F. Supp. 220, 231 (D. Tenn. 1950). (A contentious point or an additional right does not render the main obligation indecisive if that principal obligation itself is not called into question. An agreement and satisfaction in such cases would not apply.) Your country`s law must be checked by a competent advisor to determine what would apply.