Gutierrez v. Sundancer Indian Jewelry, Inc.
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1DissentHartz, Judge
The result reached by the majority opinion does not concern me as much as the way it gets there. The majority’s discussion of both defenses raised by Defendant — (1) accord and satisfaction and (2) absence of a common-law cause of action — glosses over or ignores doctrines that have commanded the respect of the great weight of authority. I fear that the majority’s freewheeling opinion will generate a great deal of confusion for practitioners and the courts.
I. ACCORD AND SATISFACTION
As stated in the second sentence of the majority opinion, “[t]he parties entered into a settlement agreement.”…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Gantt v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- National Labor Relations Board v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical WorkersSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Sterling Drug, Inc. v. OxfordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
- Mark V, Inc. v. MellekasNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.