Day v McLea: CA 1889

The fact alone that a person receives and accepts a cheque offered in full and final settlement of the person’s claim for a higher sum does not create an accord and satisfaction. There is only an accord if there is an agreement whereby the person was prepared to accept the sum sent in full satisfaction of all claims, or if the person acts in such a way as to induce the payer to think that the money is taken in satisfaction of the claim and to cause the person to act upon that view.
Bowen LJ said: ‘If a person sends a sum of money on the terms that it is to be taken if at all, in satisfaction of a larger claim; if the money is kept, it is a question of fact as to the terms upon which it is so kept. The accord and satisfaction imply an agreement to take the money in satisfaction of the claim in respect of which it is sent. If accord is a question of agreement, there must be either two minds agreeing or one of the two persons acting in such a way as to induce the other to think that the money is taken satisfaction of the claim, and according to act upon that view’.
Lord Esher MR said: ‘The question whether there has been an accord and satisfaction is one of fact’


Bowen LJ, Lord Esher MR


(1889) 22 QBD 610

Cited by:

CitedBracken and Another v Billinghurst TCC 10-Jun-2003
The claimants claimed the sum due under an adjudication award of andpound;43,984.66. The claimants had originallyy told the defendant they would take andpound;6,000 in settlement of the award. They were sent a cheque for andpound;5,000 expressed to . .
CitedStour Valley Builders (a Firm) v Stuart and Another CA 21-Dec-1992
The plaintiff builders had invoiced and pursued a revised account of andpound;10,163 after the defendants had disputed a number of items. The defendants ultimately offered a cheque in the sum of andpound;8,471 in full and final settlement of all . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.521151