Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-603 (2026)

Tender of payment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the effect of tender is governed by principles of law applicable to tender of payment under a simple contract.

(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

(c) If tender of payment of an amount due on an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument, the obligation of the obligor to pay interest after the due date on the amount tendered is discharged. If presentment is required with respect to an instrument and the obligor is able and ready to pay on the due date at every place of payment stated in the instrument, the obligor is deemed to have made tender of payment on the due date to the person entitled to enforce the instrument.

Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1979–2006 · leading case: Cumberland Bank v. G & S IMPLEMENT CO., 211 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cumberland Bank v. G & S IMPLEMENT CO., 211 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-602. 6 . Tenn.Code Ann.”

In re Frost, 1 B.R. 313 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1979). · cites it 2× “Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-603. Prior to the adoption of the Code, the courts of this state had long emphasized the significance of possession of a negotiable instrument in determining to whom payment could be made to satisfy an obligation on the instrument.”

Michael Smith v. Steve Futris v. Richard Feltus (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 7× “Smith had already been approved for a loan when he called the Futrises, he did not have access to the funds nor was the bank required to loan him the funds at that time. In order to receive the loan money, Dr.”

Com. Union Bank v. Welch (In re Welch), 29 B.R. 824 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1982). “— The holder of an instrument whether or not he is the owner may transfer or neogitate it and, except as otherwise provided in § 47-3-603 on payment or satisfaction, discharge it or enforce payment in his own name.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-603(c) — 1 case

Michael Smith v. Steve Futris v. Richard Feltus (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “Smith had already been approved for a loan when he called the Futrises, he did not have access to the funds nor was the bank required to loan him the funds at that time. In order to receive the loan money, Dr.”

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.