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

The question presented states: '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?'

However, the provided answer options are missing, so I cannot analyze each listed choice individually. I can, however, discuss the core legal principle that would typically apply in a scenario where a creditor accepts a less-than-full payment to settle a disputed or undisputed debt.

Key principle to consider:
- Accord and satisfaction: When a debtor offers a lesser amount to settle a debt and the creditor accepts that offer as full settlement, a valid accord and satisfaction often occurs. The debtor’s offer creates a new agreement (the accord) and, upon the debtor’s payment and the creditor’s acceptance, the creditor’s claim is discharged (the satisfaction). If properly formed and supported by consideration or bargained-for terms, the creditor generally cannot later sue for the remaining balance.

Applying this to the scenario:
- If Brendan truly settled for $100 as full and final settlement of the $180 claim, and this settlement was accepted, the mutual exchange constitutes an accord and satisfaction. Once the settlement is completed, Brendan typically cannot later claim the remaining $80, unless there was some defect in the process (e.g., lack of genuine dispute, lack of consideration, duress, misrepresentation, or a reservation of rights in the settlement).
- The statement in the provided (but missing) option that 'Brendan has a legal right to the additional $80, despite the promise to accept a lower amount' would generally be incorrect under standard accord and satisfaction principles. That right to the additional amount would usually be extinguished by the settlement unless one of the exceptions applies.

Potential nuances and common misconceptions:
- If the debt is undisputed and the creditor accepts less, some jurisdictions require that the acceptance be accompanied by consideration; however, court interpretations often treat the acceptance of a lesser amount as a binding accord if there is a clear offer and acceptance for full settlement, and no reserve or other conditions are stated.
- If Brendan had expressly reserved his rights to sue for the remaining amount, or if the debtor’s offer was conditional and the condition failed, there might be a path to pursue the remainder. Absent such conditions or reservations, the general outcome favors finality of the settlement.
- If there was a genuine dispute about the amount owed, the settlement could still be valid as an accord and satisfaction; still, once the payment is accepted and the dispute resolved by the agreed amount, the remaining sum is typically extinguished.

In summary, without the actual options to evaluate, the core takeaway is that an accepted offer of $100 in full settlement of a $180 debt usually constitutes an accord and satisfaction, which would bar Brendan from later claiming the remaining $80, unless a valid exception applies. The statement asserting a right to the additional $80 despite the settlement would generally be incorrect in a typical accord and satisfaction scenario.

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?

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题