Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
24 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1941–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lopez v. Muñoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P.green2 sentences2026“The accord and satisfaction defense rests upon a contract, express or implied, in which the parties agree to the discharge of an existing obligation by means of a lesser payment tendered and accepted.” Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema & Reed, L.L.P., 22 S.W.3d 857, 863 (Tex. 2000). 2024See Lopez, 22 S.W.3d at 863 (providing that the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction “rests upon a new contract, express or implied” whereby the parties agree to the discharge of an existing obligation); Ramos, 2023 WL 5115319 , at *4 (providing that the affirmative defense of release requires the moving party to prove the elements of a valid and binding contract); Vandeventer, 101 S.W.3d at 712 (explaining that whether novation has occurred is a question of the parties’ intent). | 8 | 9 |
Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum International, Inc.green2 sentences2026Int’l, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 38 , 51 n.10 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (noting that a claimant cannot avoid the accord-and- satisfaction defense by modifying the check). 2015Cooke Co., 290 S.W.3d at 304 (section 3.311 does not conflict with the common-law doctrine of accord and satisfaction; rather, the statute is consistent with the doctrine as interpreted by Texas courts); Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo–Dutch Petroleum Intern., Inc., 264 S.W.3d 38, 50 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (Texas has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code’s provisions on accord and satisfaction, which are consistent with the Texas courts’ recognition of the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction); see also TEX.BUS.&COM.CODE ANN. § 3.311, cmt. 3 (“Section 3– | 4 | 5 |
Milton M. Cooke Co. v. First Bank and Trustgreen2 sentences2015Cooke Co., 290 S.W.3d at 304 (section 3.311 does not conflict with the common-law doctrine of accord and satisfaction; rather, the statute is consistent with the doctrine as interpreted by Texas courts); Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo–Dutch Petroleum Intern., Inc., 264 S.W.3d 38, 50 (Tex.App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (Texas has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code’s provisions on accord and satisfaction, which are consistent with the Texas courts’ recognition of the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction); see also TEX.BUS.&COM.CODE ANN. § 3.311, cmt. 3 (“Section 3– 2015Cooke Co., 290 SW.3d at 304 (section 3.311 does not conflict- with the common-law doctrine of accord and satisfaction; rather, the statute is consistent with the doctrine as interpreted by Texas courts); Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Intern., Inc., 264 S.W.3d 38, 50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied) (Texas has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code’s provisions. on accord and satisfaction, which are consistent with the Texas courts’ recognition of the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction); see also TexBus. & Com.Code Ann. § 3.311, cmt. 3 (“Section 3 | 3 | 4 |
World Help v. Leisure Lifestyles, Inc.green2 sentences2009Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Intern., Inc . 264 S.W.3d 38, 50 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied); World Help v. Leisure Lifestyles, Inc . 977 S.W.2d 662, 679-80 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth, 1998, pet. denied); see Tex. Bus. & Com. 2009Case Funding Network, L.P. v. Anglo-Dutch Petroleum Intern., Inc. 264 S.W.3d 38, 50 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, pet. denied); World Help v. Leisure Lifestyles, Inc., 977 S.W.2d 662, 679-80 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied); see Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 3.311, cmt. 3 (“Section 3-311 is based on a belief that the common law rule produces a fair result and that informal dispute resolution by full satisfaction checks should be encouraged.”). 3. | 2 | 2 |
Marton Remodeling v. Jensengreen2 sentences1991See Marton Remodeling v. Jensen, 706 P.2d 607, 610 (Utah 1985); Stultz Elec. 1991See Marton Remodeling v. Jensen, 706 P.2d 607, 610 (Utah 1985); Stultz Elec. | 2 | 2 |
Katy International, Inc. F/ka/ Emer International, Inc., Mengghui Zhang and Binghua Jiang v. Jinchun Jianggreen2 sentences2025LuxeYard, Inc. v. Klinek, 643 S.W.3d 260 , 266 (Tex. App— Houston [14th Dist.] 2022, no pet.) (citing Katy Int’l v. Jiang, 451 S.W.3d 74, 86 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied)). 2022Katy Int’l v. Jiang, 451 S.W.3d 74 . 86 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied). | 1 | 2 |
Vandeventer v. All American Life & Casualty Co.green1 sentence2024See Lopez, 22 S.W.3d at 863 (providing that the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction “rests upon a new contract, express or implied” whereby the parties agree to the discharge of an existing obligation); Ramos, 2023 WL 5115319 , at *4 (providing that the affirmative defense of release requires the moving party to prove the elements of a valid and binding contract); Vandeventer, 101 S.W.3d at 712 (explaining that whether novation has occurred is a question of the parties’ intent). | 1 | 1 |
Custom Transit, L.P., Richway Cartage, Inc., and Custom Operations, LLC v. Flatrolled Steel, Inc.green1 sentence2014Id.; see also Custom Transit, L.P. v. Flatrolled Steel, Inc., 375 S.W.3d 337, 347 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (“[F]or this defense to prevail, there must be a dispute and an unmistakable communication to the creditor that tender of the reduced sum is upon the condition that acceptance will satisfy the underlying obligation.” (alteration in original, citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Jenkins v. Henry C. Beck Companygreen1 sentence2012Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1969)); see also Huang v. Don McGill Toyota, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 674, 681 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). “[F]or this defense to prevail, there must be a dispute and an unmistakable communication to the creditor that tender of the reduced sum is upon the condition that acceptance will satisfy the underlying obligation.” Lopez, 22 S.W.3d at 863 . | 1 | 1 |
Hong Huang v. Don McGill Toyota, Inc.green1 sentence2012Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex.1969)); see also Huang v. Don McGill Toyota, Inc., 209 S.W.3d 674, 681 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, no pet.). “[F]or this defense to prevail, there must be a dispute and an unmistakable communication to the creditor that tender of the reduced sum is upon the condition that acceptance will satisfy the underlying obligation.” Lopez, 22 S.W.3d at 863 . | 1 | 1 |
Richardson v. Allstate Texas Lloyd'sgreen1 sentence2010Richardson v. Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s, 235 S.W.3d 863, 865 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); Kerrville HRH, Inc. v. City of Kerrville, 803 S.W.2d 377, 388 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Kerrville HRH, Inc. v. City of Kerrvillegreen1 sentence2010Richardson v. Allstate Tex. Lloyd’s, 235 S.W.3d 863, 865 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.); Kerrville HRH, Inc. v. City of Kerrville, 803 S.W.2d 377, 388 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Trevino v. Brookhill Capital Resources, Inc.green2 sentences1991See Trevino, 782 S.W.2d at 281-82 . 1991See Trevino, 782 S.W.2d at 281-82 . | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. Rowegreen1 sentence1990Harris v. Rowe, 593 S.W.2d 303, 306 (Tex. 1979). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Houston v. First City
green
1 sentence2006Reinmiller cites City of Houston v. First City, 827 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied), as authority. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Stultz Electric Works v. Marine Hydraulic Engineering Co.
green
2 sentences1991Stultz, 484 A.2d at 1011 ; see also Tex.Bu[s]. & Com.Code Ann. sec. 1.103 and official comment 1 (Tex.U. 1991Stultz, 484 A.2d at 1011 ; see also Tex.Bu[s]. & Com.Code Ann. sec. 1.103 and official comment 1 (Tex.U. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Air Van Lines, Inc. v. Buster
green
2 sentences1991Without any reference to section 1-207, the court applied the common law accord and satisfaction doctrine. [4] We note that in Air Van Lines, Inc. v. Buster, 673 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1983), the court did not hold that the accord and satisfaction doctrine was unaffected by section 1-207; rather, the court held that if section 1-207 applies to a full-payment check, the creditor failed to explicitly reserve its rights. 1991We note that in Air Van Lines, Inc. v. Buster, 673 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1983), the court did not hold that the accord and satisfaction doctrine was unaffected by section 1-207; rather, the court held that if section 1-207 applies to a full-payment check, the creditor failed to explicitly reserve its rights. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Poe
green
2 sentences1941Co. v. Poe, 131 Tex. 337 ; 115 S.W.2d 591 . 1941Co. v. Poe, 131 Tex. 337 ; 115 S.W.2d 591 . | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.