James S. Black & Co. v. Charron, 22 Wash. App. 11 (1978)

Citation: James S. Black & Co. v. Charron, 22 Wash. App. 11 (1978)
Parent Document: James S. Black & Co. v. Charron, 22 Wash. App. 11 (1978)
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Effective Date: 1978-11-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6949795/james-s-black-co-v-charron/ ↗

Full Text

596 chars

The courts also look to the intention of the parties as to whether there has been an accord and satisfaction. Generally, the important question is whether there was a meeting of the minds as to a genuine compromise, arrived at through mutual agreement, and not "fallen into inadvertently." Kibler v. Garrett & Sons, Inc., 73 Wn.2d 523, 529, 439 P.2d 416 (1968); see also Plywood Marketing Associates v. Astoria Plywood Corp., 16 Wn. App. 566, 574, 558 P.2d 283 (1976). We find no mutual agreement due to the inadvertent return of the security deposit which operated as an accord and satisfaction.

Other Sections in This Document (12)

Full Text