Wong v. Paisner

After a dispute arose over whether their fixed-fee contract had been modified to an hourly rate, Paisner (defendant) sent Wong (plaintiff) a $1,000 check with a letter explicitly stating it represented payment in full of the disputed claim; Wong crossed out the 'payment in full' language on the check itself before depositing it, then sued for the remaining balance he claimed was owed under the hourly-rate theory. The trial court refused to instruct the jury on accord and satisfaction, and the jury awarded Wong $4,400.

Whether, if a check that is offered in full payment of a disputed claim is accepted and deposited, there is an accord and satisfaction that prevents collection on any outstanding balance.