Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1308 (2026)

Performance or promise of performance; effect of reservation of rights; applicability of subsection (1) to accord and satisfaction.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE

Act 174 of 1962

440.1308 Performance or promise of performance; effect of reservation of rights; applicability of subsection (1) to accord and satisfaction.

Sec. 1308.

(1) A party that with explicit reservation of rights performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not prejudice the rights reserved by that performance, promise, or assent. Words such as "without prejudice", "under protest", or the like are sufficient.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

History: Add. 2012, Act 86, Eff. July 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2022 · leading case: Rene Marie Sturdavent v. William Sim Spencer (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Rene Marie Sturdavent v. William Sim Spencer (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Next, Spencer asserts that all of his payments to the FOC have contained an express reservation of his right to enforce the March 17, 2016 release, as allowed by MCL 440.1308. We disagree because he fails to establish that the statute governs child support…”

Kenwal Pickling LLC v. Pvs Tech. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “1308(1); MCL 440.1308, official comment 1 (2013). While PVS was not required to use specific language to reserve its rights, the record does not indicate PVS made even a general reservation.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.1308(1) — 2 cases

Rene Marie Sturdavent v. William Sim Spencer (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “RESERVATION OF RIGHTS Next, Spencer asserts that all of his payments to the FOC have contained an express reservation of his right to enforce the March 17, 2016 release, as allowed by MCL 440.1308. We disagree because he fails to establish that the statute governs child support…”

Kenwal Pickling LLC v. Pvs Tech. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “1308(1); MCL 440.1308, official comment 1 (2013). While PVS was not required to use specific language to reserve its rights, the record does not indicate PVS made even a general reservation.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.