The satisfaction is the actual performance of the new agreement.Ramos v. Walters, No. 01-16-00514-CV, 2017 WL 2545095, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 13, 2017, no pet. h.) (quoting Lopez v. Munoz, Hockema, & Reed, LLP, 22 S.W.3d 857, 863 (Tex. 2000)) (citing Jenkins v. Henry C. Beck Co., 449 S.W.2d 454, 455 (Tex. 1969); Ostrow v. United Bus. Machs, Inc., 982 S.W.2d 101, 104 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1998, no pet.)). The defense of accord and satisfaction is not limited to breach of contract claims.

The trial court could have reasonably overruled the objection on this ground as well. SeeSw. Elec. Power Co. v. Burlington N. R.R. , 966 S.W.2d 467, 473 (Tex. 1998) (noting that a party opens the door to the admission of otherwise objectionable evidence offered by the other side when it offers evidence of a similar character); Ramos v. Walters , No. 01-16-00514-CV, 2017 WL 2545095, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 13, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.)