DATE DOWNLOADED: Fri Jun 11 13:06:12 2021

SOURCE: Content Downloaded from HeinOnline

Citations:

Bluebook 21st ed.

Accord and Satisfaction, 4 CAN. L. REV. 469 (1905).

ALWD 6th ed.

, Accord and satisfaction, 4(10) Can. L. Rev. 469 (1905).

APA 7th ed.

(1905). Accord and satisfaction. Canadian Law Review, 4(10), 469-469.

Chicago 17th ed.

"Accord and Satisfaction," Canadian Law Review 4, no. 10 (October 1905): 469-469

McGill Guide 9th ed.

"Accord and Satisfaction" (1905) 4:10 Can L Rev 469.

AGLC 4th ed.

'Accord and Satisfaction' (1905) 4(10) Canadian Law Review 469.

MLA 8th ed.

"Accord and Satisfaction." Canadian Law Review, vol. 4, no. 10, October 1905, p.
469-469. HeinOnline.

OSCOLA 4th ed.

'Accord and Satisfaction' (1905) 4 Can L Rev 469

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and
Conditions of the license agreement available at
https://heinonline.org/HOL/License
-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.
 ACCORD AND SATISFACTION.

destroyed. It is the directors' duty, not the transferor's or trans-

feree's, as the Court of Appeal have recently laid down, to safe-
guard the register.
THR LAW QUARTE1RLY

ACCORD AND SATISFACTION

In Nathan v. Ogdens (Lim.), one of the numerous cases arising
out of the sale of the defendants' business to the Imperial Tobacco
Company, and the consequent lapse of their bonus scheme, several
interesting points as to accord and satisfaction were raised. The
liquidator of the defendant company sent to the plaintiffs a cheque
to order, on the back of which the words ''Received this cheque,
being my share of the second and final bonus distribution of the
company," were printed; and the plaintiffs signed this receipt and
cashed the cheque and afterwards brought this action for damages
for breach of contract. Mr. Justice A. T. Lawrence disposed of the
defence that by accepting the cheque and signing the receipt the
plaintiffs had waived any further claim on the simple ground that
there were no words of release or discharge in the receipt. The
company having gone into liquidation, the use of the words ''Final
distribution" expressed the true state of facts. There would be no
further distribution; but the language of the receipt was no evi-
dence of an intention to waive a claim for damages. It thus
became unnecessary to give a decision on the argument that the
cheque was a negotiable instrument, the acceptance of which in
respect of a debt for a larger sum amotinted to an accord and satis-
faction. There is, of course, authority that a negotiable instrument
will operate, if so taken, as satisfaction for a debt of a greater
amount, its negotiability making it in theory more advantageous
than the original debt (see Sibree v. Tripp, 15 M. & W. 23, and
Goddard v. O'Brien, L. R. 9 Q. B. Div. 37); and the learned judge
was of opinion that the cheque was a negotiable instrument, not-
withstanding a direction on the face of it that the receipt must be
signed, and that the signature would be taken as an indorsement.
This direction, he said, was not addressed to the bankers, and did
not affect the nature of the order to them. Even if the receipt had
plainly admitted that it was in full satisfaction of a debt, it might in
some circumstances have been arguable that it was not conclusive,
though no doubt strong evidence of accord and satisfaction, for
there is ample authority that a receipt is not technically an estoppel.