Newsome owed Brown $1,300 due on June 30. Brown had lent him the money earlier in the year. Neither the debt nor Newsome's ability to repay the debt was in question. Separately, Brown provided painting services to Newsome on June 1. Newsome had requested the painting be done, Brown agreed, however, no price was set. Brown sent Newsome a bill for $400 after the painting was complete. On June 30 Newsome sent Brown a check for $1,300 with a letter stating, "This payment covers both debts. Payee, upon cashing the check, gives up all rights to any additional compensation." The same wording was put on the check. Brown was unsure what to do, but needed the money, and on July 1, cashed the check. Brown then sent a demand letter to Newsome for $400. Newsome has indicated Brown gave up rights in this dispute. Advance arguments for both sides and indicate who should prevail. Use the Issue/Decision/Support/Dissent model from the website. Answer the question(s) thoroughly exploring issues for both sides. Use the Issue/Decision/Support/Dissent approach in your answer: Issue: What is the issue(s) that is disputed? Decision: Who should prevail? Support: Support your decision in law. Why should one side prevail in this dispute? Dissent: What are the strongest arguments for the party that lost?
What is the issue(s) that is disputed?
Newsome owed two different debts to Brown, one of $1300 which was to be paid till June 30 and another one was the bill of $400 which was sent by Brown to Newsome. Newsome paid a cheque of $1300 to Brown clearly stating that the one who will cash this cheque will give up all rights to any additional compensation. Brown encashed the cheque which meant that he has given all rights to Newsome for any additional compensation as it was the clause which was mentioned on the cheque. Now, even after encashing the cheque Brown sent a demand letter to Newsome for $400. Newsome has indicated that Brown gave up all rights in this dispute as he encashed the cheque.
Who should prevail?
Newsome should prevail in this case as he has clearly mentioned in writing on the cheque that after encashing this cheque; all rights to any additional compensation will be transferred to Newsome. Brown encashed the cheque which means that he gave up all rights in this dispute Newsome and hence, Brown is not in position to claim the additional compensation of $400 from Newsome.
Why should one side prevail in this dispute?
The decision in law would be made by referring to the USA contract law as both the parties enter into the contract of the type of “offer and acceptance” where Newsome, in the contract in the form of cheque, offered that upon encashing the cheque, the payee would give up all rights to any additional compensation. Brown cashed the cheque which means that he has accepted the offer and thus gave up all rights of any additional compensation to Newsome.
What are the strongest arguments for the party that lost?
The strongest argument for the party that lost i.e. Brown is that the clause which was mentioned on the cheque did not described that what type of right and what type of compensation are required to be given up to Newsome. Hence, it is not clearly stated that the bill of $400 sent to Newsome was included in the contract.
Newsome owed Brown $1,300 due on June 30. Brown had lent him the money earlier in...
Bob Areebob is a recognized french horn player. Bob has played as a freelance musician for several major symphonies. Last year Bob went through bankruptcy and in order to pay his rent for a couple of months took out loans from a small savings institution - Avarice Bank - and pledged his french horn as collateral. He was unable to make the first payment on the loan so the bank was getting ready to take the french horn for non-payment....
Please read the article and answer about questions. You and the Law Business and law are inseparable. For B-Money, the two predictably merged when he was negotiat- ing a deal for his tracks. At other times, the merger is unpredictable, like when your business faces an unexpected auto accident, product recall, or government regulation change. In either type of situation, when business owners know the law, they can better protect themselves and sometimes even avoid the problems completely. This chapter...