Hennecke v. Harold Warp & Flex-O-Glass, Inc.

4 Citing cases

  1. Professional Therapy Serv. v. Signature Corp.

    223 Ill. App. 3d 902 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992)   Cited 16 times
    Affirming a lower court's decision that service was proper because defendant did not overcome its burden showing otherwise

    Second, defendant argues that there was an accord and satisfaction. It is well known "that to constitute an accord and satisfaction there must be an honest dispute between the parties, a tender with the explicit understanding of both parties that it was in full payment of all demands, and an acceptance by the creditor with the understanding that the tender is accepted in full payment." ( Hennecke v. Warp (1952), 347 Ill. App. 425, 430, 107 N.E.2d 185, 187.) Thus, defendant, by arguing accord and satisfaction in the instant case, virtually admits the existence of a contract between the parties.

  2. Sherman v. Rokacz

    538 N.E.2d 898 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Rejecting accord and satisfaction defense where, among other things, debtor had not even pleaded the doctrine or established at trial that there was a bona fide dispute over the amount owing

    Moreover, the defendant testified that his partner thought he "should" not have to pay certain "things," not that he claimed that he was not legally obligated to pay them. That testimony can hardly be said to have established by a preponderance of the evidence that there was, in fact, a bona fide dispute and an unliquidated sum. There must be a showing that the claim or demand was disputed in good faith. ( Jackson v. Security Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1908), 233 Ill. 161, 84 N.E. 198; Hennecke v. Warp (1952), 347 Ill. App. 425, 107 N.E.2d 185.) Merely asserting the existence of a dispute does not establish it. ( Teague v. John E. Burns Lumber Co. (1914), 187 Ill. App. 225.) The only dispute that the defendant has established was one between him and Spiezer.

  3. Amoco Oil Co. v. Segall

    118 Ill. App. 3d 1002 (Ill. App. Ct. 1983)   Cited 23 times
    Stating that the court has "broad powers to supervise the discovery process"

    • 4, 5 We next consider defendant's motion to dismiss on the basis of accord and satisfaction. It has been held many times that to constitute an accord and satisfaction there must be an honest dispute between the parties, a tender with the explicit understanding of both parties that it was in full payment of all demands, and an acceptance by the creditor with the understanding that the tender is accepted in full payment. ( Farmers Mechanics Life Association v. Caine (1906), 224 Ill. 599, 79 N.E. 956; Hennecke v. Warp (1952), 347 Ill. App. 425, 107 N.E.2d 185.) We need not consider whether there was an honest dispute between the parties, whether sending the check into the stream of monthly bill payments constituted bad faith, or whether cashing a debtor's check sent in this fashion constitutes assent as a matter of law; the trial court did not reach these questions.

  4. Employment Counsel, Inc. v. Szarek

    112 N.E.2d 524 (Ill. App. Ct. 1953)   Cited 1 times

    We think that is sufficient to establish accord and satisfaction prima facie.[5] If plaintiff was not willing to accept the check as sent, in full payment of the account, it ought to have returned it. The rule would be otherwise with reference to defendant against whom plaintiff had a liquidated claim. Hennecke v. Warp, 347 Ill. App. 425. It must be kept in mind that the Company is a third party and not a debtor. If, therefore, there is evidence in the record tending to prove that the plaintiff accepted the Company's check in full satisfaction of plaintiff's claim against defendant, the affirmative defense of accord and satisfaction has been proved prima facie.