Andre owes Brendan $180. Brendan is offered $100 by Andre as full and final settlement. Brendan accepts this offer. Which one of the following is most correct?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Re-stating the scenario helps frame the analysis: Andre owes Brendan $180. Andre offers to settle for $100 as full and final, and Brendan accepts.
Option a: "Andre does not have to return the additional $80 without additional consideration being provided by Brendan." This is phrased awkwardly, but the idea is that unless there is some new consideration from Brendan, Andre doesn’t owe the extra $80. In accord and satisfaction, the debtor’s offer of a lesser amount accepted as full satisfaction generally discharges the remaining balance. So this option misstates the typical effect: Brendan’s acceptance of $100 does not create a separate obligation for Brendan to provide anything in return for the extra $80; rather, the $100 is meant to be full settlement of the claim.
Option b: "This situation is very similar to the facts in Balfour v Balfour." Balfour v Balfour deals with domestic arrangements and consideration in misunderstandings about enforceability of promises in private domestic contexts. The facts here involve a creditor-debtor settlement and are not analogous to that case, so this comparison is not appropriate.
Option c: "Brendan is absolutely precluded from suing Andre for the additional $80 if he accepts $100." The doctrine of accord and satisfaction typically provides that when a creditor accepts a lesser amount as full settlement, the claim is discharged and the debtor is released from the obligation to pay the remaining balance, provided the settlement is valid and no other defects exist (like fraud or duress). The word "absolutely" is strong, but the core idea aligns with the general rule that the liability is settled and the creditor cannot sue for the rest if the agreement is otherwise effective.
Option d: "Brendan has a legal right to the additional $80, despite the promise to accept a lower amount." This contradicts the effect of an accord and satisfaction, where accepting a lesser amount as full settlement typically bars further claims for the remainder, absent special circumstances. Therefore this option asserts a right that the settlement remedies usually extinguish.
In summary, option a misstates the relief granted by a settlement; option b misapplies a domestic-relations case; option d contradicts the settled result of accord and satisfaction; option c correctly captures the typical legal consequence that accepting a lesser amount as full settlement precludes further claims for the remaining balance, assuming a valid accord and satisfaction.

Andre owes Brendan $180. Brendan is offered $100 by Andre as full and final settlement. Brendan accepts this offer. Which one of the following is most correct?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions