Legal Opinion
AFC Interiors v. DiCello
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided October 4, 1989No. 88-1541PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.
The dispositive question presented in this cause is whether an accord and satisfaction has taken place with regard to the debt owed by DiCello to AFC. The appellee, DiCello, contends that an accord and satisfaction has taken place under the instant facts. The appellant, AFC, argues however that R.C. 1301.13, which embodies Section 1-207 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), should supersede the doctrine of accord and satisfaction in the “full payment” or “conditional check” situation *3where the payee reserves his or her rights to pursue the balance of the debt alleged to be owed.
Accord and…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Horn Waterproofing Corp. v. Bushwick Iron & Steel Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Scholl v. TallmanSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1976
- State ex rel. Shady Acres Nursing Home, Inc. v. RhodesOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Baillie Lumber Co. v. Kincaid Carolina Corp.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
- Majestic Building Material Corp. v. Gateway Plumbing, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1985
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Allen v. R.G. Industrial SupplyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Ricker v. John Deere InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- Robinson v. Garcia, Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District1991
- Burke Co. v. Hilton Development Co.District Court, N.D. Florida · 1992
- Frangiosa v. KapoukranidisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1993
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.