Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604 (2026)
Discharge by cancellation or renunciation
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) A person entitled to enforce an instrument, with or without consideration, may discharge the obligation of a party to pay the instrument (i) by an intentional voluntary act, such as surrender of the instrument to the party, destruction, mutilation, or cancellation of the instrument, cancellation or striking out of the party's signature, or the addition of words to the instrument indicating discharge, or (ii) by agreeing not to sue or otherwise renouncing rights against the party by a signed writing.
- (b) Cancellation or striking out of an endorsement pursuant to subsection (a) does not affect the status and rights of a party derived from the endorsement.
Acts 1995, ch. 397, § 2.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Johnson v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 715 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).
Johnson v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 715 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “Further, “[w]hen a tender is refused, the debtor must keep the tender open, as by paying the money into court, and if this is not done, the debtor cannot claim the benefit of [Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-604].” 6 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 3-604:5 (3d ed.”
Cumberland Bank v. G & S IMPLEMENT CO., 211 S.W.3d 223 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “However, the Uniform Commercial Code defines an “accommodation party” as a person who signs an instrument to benefit the "accommodated party” and who is not a direct beneficiary of the value obtained.”
Crocker v. Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville (In Re Quality Takes Time, Inc.), 96 B.R. 818 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1989). “§ 47-3-604(2). Since there is no material issues of fact remaining the motion for summary judgment should be granted in favor of Third National.”
Drayton D. Berkley v. Household Fin. Ctr. & Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “In the alternative, he asserts that Household’s intent to discharge the debts is determined from the letters he sent with the checks.”
Synovus Bank v. David A. Paczko (Tenn. Ct. App. 2015). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604 (a) (2001). The word “instrument” as used in Article 3 “means a negotiable instrument.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604(1) — 1 case
Johnson v. Midland Bank & Trust Co., 715 S.W.2d 607 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “Further, “[w]hen a tender is refused, the debtor must keep the tender open, as by paying the money into court, and if this is not done, the debtor cannot claim the benefit of [Tenn.Code Ann. § 47-3-604].” 6 Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 3-604:5 (3d ed.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604(2) — 1 case
Crocker v. Third Nat'l Bank in Nashville (In Re Quality Takes Time, Inc.), 96 B.R. 818 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1989). “§ 47-3-604(2). Since there is no material issues of fact remaining the motion for summary judgment should be granted in favor of Third National.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604(a) — 1 case
Drayton D. Berkley v. Household Fin. Ctr. & Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “In the alternative, he asserts that Household’s intent to discharge the debts is determined from the letters he sent with the checks.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-3-604(a)(ii) — 1 case
Drayton D. Berkley v. Household Fin. Ctr. & Beneficial Tennessee, Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). “In the alternative, he asserts that Household’s intent to discharge the debts is determined from the letters he sent with the checks.”
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.