previously existing claim in Pennsylvania

1991Gordon Brothers, Inc., 92 Pa.Super. at 491 (citation omitted); Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984) (a substituted contract displaces and extinguishes an extant valid contract); Lazzarotti v. Juliano, 322 Pa.Super. 129 , 469 A.2d 216 (1983) (an accord requires actual payment or performance and is not satisfied by a “mere promise of future performance”).

1991Gordon Brothers, Inc., 92 Pa.Super. at 491 (citation omitted); Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984) (a substituted contract displaces and extinguishes an extant valid contract); Lazzarotti v. Juliano, 322 Pa.Super. 129 , 469 A.2d 216 (1983) (an accord requires actual payment or performance and is not satisfied by a “mere promise of future performance”).

1991Gordon Brothers, Inc., 92 Pa.Super. at 491 (citation omitted); Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984) (a substituted contract displaces and extinguishes an extant valid contract); Lazzarotti v. Juliano, 322 Pa.Super. 129 , 469 A.2d 216 (1983) (an accord requires actual payment or performance and is not satisfied by a “mere promise of future performance”).

1991Gordon Brothers, Inc., 92 Pa.Super. at 491 (citation omitted); Buttonwood Farms, Inc. v. Carson, 329 Pa.Super. 312 , 478 A.2d 484 (1984) (a substituted contract displaces and extinguishes an extant valid contract); Lazzarotti v. Juliano, 322 Pa.Super. 129 , 469 A.2d 216 (1983) (an accord requires actual payment or performance and is not satisfied by a “mere promise of future performance”).

1969The second presumption does not of itself destroy the first but requires some proof of facts and circumstances to be given the effect of overcoming the first; as for instance, the long lapse of time during which the other party may be presumed to have died, the question of legitimacy of a child of the second marriage, the fact that the other spouse had likewise remarried and proof that the decedent, whose heirs are attacking the second marriage, had himself recognized the validity of it.’ ” The Supreme Court went on to say: “To hold that the presumption of innocence and the presumption of the

1969The second presumption does not of itself destroy the first but requires some proof of facts and circumstances to be given the effect of overcoming the first; as for instance, the long lapse of time during which the other party may be presumed to have died, the question of legitimacy of a child of the second marriage, the fact that the other spouse had likewise remarried and proof that the decedent, whose heirs are attacking the second marriage, had himself recognized the validity of it.’ ” The Supreme Court went on to say: “To hold that the presumption of innocence and the presumption of the

2011The second presumption does not of itself destroy the first but requires some proof of facts and circumstances to be given effect of overcoming the first [presumption].” Id.

1990“A substituted contract is a mode of extinguishing one obligation by another, that is, the acceptance of a new promise in satisfaction of a previously existing claim[,] while in the case of an accord and satisfaction it is not the new promise itself but the performance of the new promise that is accepted as a satisfaction.” Nowicki, 492 A.2d at 40 (quoting other cases).