Sergeant v. Leonard (1981)

They claim the district court's failure to give an instruction on accord prejudiced Erickson, because if the jury had found an accord rather than a novation, the original agreement would not have been extinguished, Erickson would have been entitled to enforce the original agreement if Brown breached the conditions of the accord, and the jury could have found that Brown breached the agreement to give Erickson a 25 percent interest in Capital Harvest. [¶ 49] In Herb Hill Ins.,…

Potter, 426 N.W.2d at 151 ; Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 547 (Iowa 1981).

See Payable Accounting Corp. v. McKinley, 667 P.2d 15, 18 (Utah 1983) (discussing securities transactions falling within scope of Federal and Utah securities laws); cf. Bertha, 414 F.Supp.2d at 877 (noting that legislative history suggests that stock sales are not covered by Wisconsin's real estate licensing statutes because they are "specifically governed by securities laws"); Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 547-48 (Iowa 1981) (recognizing applicability of Iowa's blue …

Fidelity’s act of forwarding premium payments to NARe at best reveals evidence of an “accord.” See Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1981) (“With an accord the parties intend that the original contract obligation remains viable but that it is suspended pending performance by the debtor of the modification.”).

Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 545 (Iowa 1981).

The difference between an accord and a novation is explained in Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 545-46 (Iowa 1981).

See Sergeant v. Leonard, 312 N.W.2d 541, 548 (Iowa 1981).