Algaziyev Assylbek Essays - Contract Law, Law, Money, Finance

Algaziyev Assylbek Essays - Contract Law, Law, Money, Finance Algaziyev Assylbek BIB A4007536 The issue which needs to be discussed is whether how Archie, Bob and Pat can get their original debts back from Esenes. Before I will give some advises for Archie, Bob and Pat I would explain what means accord and satisfaction, consideration and accord as an equitable defense. Accord and Satisfaction Accord and satisfaction is a contract law concept about the purchase of the release from a debt obligation. The payment is typically less than what is owed and is not paid by the actual performance of the original obligation. The accord is the agreement to discharge the obligation and the satisfaction is the legal "consideration" which binds the parties to the agreement. If a person is sued over an alleged debt they bear the burden of proving the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction Consideration In an accord contract it is typical that the consideration supplied is less than bargained for in the original contract. In accord contracts that require an amount of consideration that is less than the original, the consideration must be of a different type, i.e. instead of money, debtor offers a car or a boat. Accord as an Equitable Defense A valid accord does not discharge the prior contract, it suspends the right to enforce it in accordance with the terms of the accord contract, in which satisfaction, or performance of the contract will discharge both contracts (the original and the accord). If the creditor breaches the accord, then the debtor will be able to bring up the existence of the accord in order to enjoin any action against him The accord agreement must be transacted on a new agreement. It must therefore have the essential terms of a contract, (parties, subject matter, time for performance, and consideration). If there is a breach of the accord there will be no "satisfaction" which will give rise to a breach of accord. In this instance the non-offending party has the right to sue under either the original contract or the accord agreement Advises In the first case with Archie we can see a negotiable instrument. A negotiable instrument can function as a substitute for money or as an extension of credit. For example: when buyer writes check to pay for goods, the check serves as a substitute for money. When a buyer gives a seller a promissory note in which the buyer promises to pay the seller the purchase price within sixty days, the seller has extended credit to the buyer for a sixty days, the seller has essentially extended credit to the buyer for a sixty day-period. For a negotiable instrument to operate practically as either a substitute for money or a credit device, or both, it is essential that the instrument be easily transferable without danger of being uncollectible. This is a fundamental function of negotiable instrument. A s Archie gladly accepted an invitation to the launch party instead of payment negotiable instrument can be seen. M oreover Archie was in accord and satisf ied which does not give him chance to sue and win a court Esenes therefore get the original debt from Esenes. In the second occasion with Bob as case Foakes v Beer states that " Mrs. B obtained a judgment for debt against Dr F in the sum of 2,090. The parties agreed that if Dr F paid 500 at once and the balance by installments Mrs . B would not take "any proceedings whatever on the judgment debt. Dr. F paid 2090 but Mrs. B then claimed interest on the judgment debt. Dr F had to pay the interest. The agreement between the parties did not help him because it was unsupported by consideration " according to that case as Bob reluctantly agreed to accept it in full and final payment of her debt there was no consideration between Bob and Esenes therefore it enables Bob to get the original debt and interest as well. For a Pat I could advise to refer to Hirachand Punamchand v Temple case which states that "Creditor accepted a smaller sum from the debtor's father in full settlement. The creditor could not sue the debtor for the balance as it would be a fraud on the father to