Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Arroll

Facts

Mark Arroll (Defendant) was a customer of Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Plaintiff). Defendant disputed the amounts due to Plaintiff in five bills for electricity consumed during the summers of 1968, 1969, and 1970. On December 6, 1969, Defendant sent a letter to the president of Plaintiff. The letter disputed the amounts due for three Plaintiff bills and stated that Defendant would send three checks in the amount of $35.00 each to the post office box Plaintiff designated for payment of bills. The letter also stated that Plaintiff’s cashing or retention of the checks would constitute full accord and satisfaction of Plaintiff’s claims. On September 25, 1970, Defendant sent a similar letter with respect to the remaining two bills in dispute. In accordance with the letters, Defendant sent five checks in the amount of $35.00 each to the post office box. On each check, Defendant wrote that the check was in full payment and satisfaction for its corresponding bill. Defendant also wrote the words “paid in full” on each check and referenced either the December 6, 1969 or the September 25, 1970 letter. Plaintiff replied by letter that the five bills were accurate, but did not mention the checks. Plaintiff received each check and deposited them. Plaintiff then sued Defendant to recover the difference between the amount received and the amount billed. Defendant argued accord and satisfaction of the amount due.