Home Table of Contents

AMI 2431 Defense—Accord and Satisfaction

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 2431
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
December 2023 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 24. Contracts
Defenses
AMI 2431 Defense—Accord and Satisfaction
[Defendant] contends and has the burden of proving that an accord and satisfaction occurred as to [defendant]'s obligations under the parties' contract. In order to establish [his][her][its] claim, [defendant] must prove each of three essential propositions:
First, that the parties agreed that one would accept from the other a different performance in full satisfaction of the performance required by their contract;
Second, that both parties understood that their rights and obligations under their original contract would be canceled by their agreement; and
Third, that the party obligated to perform the substituted obligation actually performed it.
[If you find from the evidence in this case that each of these propositions has been proved, then your verdict should be for [defendant]].
NOTE ON USE
If the case involves an instrument within the meaning of Ark. Code Ann. § 4-3-311, which provides special rules when an instrument is tendered in full satisfaction of a claim, this instruction may not be appropriate.
Do not use the bracketed sentence when the case is submitted on interrogatories.
COMMENT
This instruction is based on Fort Smith Finance Corp. v. Parrish, 302 Ark. 299, 789 S.W.2d 723 (1990); Jewell v. General Air Conditioning Corp., 226 Ark. 304, 289 S.W.2d 881 (1956); and Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Peoples Loan & Inv. Co., 191 Ark. 982, 88 S.W.2d 831 (1935). This instruction was recognized as a proper statement of Arkansas law in Trammell v. Hooks, 2013 Ark. App. 576. Absent a dispute as to the performance required under the original contract, part-performance of the original contract cannot provide the basis for accord and satisfaction. Inge v. Walker, 70 Ark. App. 114, 15 S.W.3d 348 (2000); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 278, illus. 3 (1981).
The Committee has not prepared an instruction on the issue of novation. Novation is a species of accord and satisfaction, Harris v. Wildcat Corp., 97 Idaho 884, 556 P.2d 67, 69 (1976), and occurs in the infrequent situation when a new party, who was neither entitled to performance nor owed a duty under the original contract, is substituted in a new contract. Harrison v. Benton State Bank, 6 Ark. App. 355, 642 S.W.2d 331 (1982). If the present instruction on accord and satisfaction is not satisfactory in a particular case involving the issue of novation, this instruction should be modified.
End of Document