Agreement Vs Accord

Central English agreement, acord, borrowed from anglo-French acord, acorde, substantive derivation d`acorder “to come to an agreement, accord entry 1″ An agreement is the least binding of the accepted colonies. When the term is used to designate the last stage of a negotiation or in the settlement of a dispute, it implies the existence of certain obligations or the exchange of promises and dependence on the honour of the parties to the agreement for the fulfilance of such commitments or promises. Agreement is the most positive word; it usually involves a final settlement of the conditions. The agreement may or may not be in writing (such as in the form of a contract or contract); it may or may not be accompanied by consideration. Central European agreement, acorden “to reconcile, come to an agreement, be in agreement”, borrowed from Anglo-French acorder, return to the Vulgresse *accordāre, from the Latin ad- ad- + -cordāre, as in concordāre “to be in agreement”, discordāre “to be in conflict” – more in case of concordance controversies may arise on the settlement of claims based on conformity and satisfaction, if a claim or compensation as a partial payment of cash and not The Eastern Rights Commission has been inserted. A claim initially settled shall not be settled if, as a result of a counter-claim or set-off, the amount actually due has been called into question on the balance between the parties. Under these conditions, an agreement and satisfaction may result from the payment of an amount lower than that of the creditor, including an amount that does not exceed the balance granted. Thus, a lump sum claim owed to a creditor is not settled.” where the debtor invokes in good faith a counter-claim or set-off in dispute and, in that case, agreement and satisfaction may result from the payment by the debtor of an amount lower than the creditor`s claim and not greater than the amount to which the debtor is liable. In H.L. “Brownie” Choate, Inc. v.

Southland Drilling Co., Inc., 441 P.W.2d 672 (Tex. Civ. App. San Antonio 1969), defendant creditor, which was the service provider of the defendant debtor, caused damage to the defendant`s drilling facility. In accordance with its previous practice, the defendant recovered the amount of the damage by deducting the amount it owed to the applicant for the services rendered. The applicant brought an action for recovery of the amount deducted. The court decided that “. if the amount due was disputed and the debtor offered a cheque lower than the amount requested by the creditor, while the debtor expressed his intention that the cheque was offered in full, the withholding and cashing of the cheque by the creditor was considered acceptance of the offer, and such a measure by the creditor was considered to be full satisfaction. The Tribunal found that the claimant`s acceptance of a lower amount constituted an agreement and satisfaction of the debt. A majority of jurists follow this view, although there is a contrary authority. See B. Mifflin Hood Co. v.

Lichter, 106 F. Supp. 220, 231 (D. Tenn. 1950). (A counter-claim or additional claim in dispute does not render the principal obligation untaled if that principal obligation is not itself contested.