Section 1-207 UZK allows a party to benefit from a reservation of rightsserving a statement intentionally serving all or part of the legal rights to warn others of those rights. in the performance of a contract. This section raises a difficult question when a debtor makes a full payment cheque to pay a disputed debt. As noted in this chapter, since, under the Common Law, the creditor`s acceptance of a cheque in full payment constitutes an agreement and satisfaction for the payment of a disputed debt, the creditor cannot recover the amount beyond the cheque. But what happens if, when cashing the cheque, the creditor reserves the right (in accordance with section 1-207) to take legal action for an amount that goes beyond what the debtor offers? Courts are divided on this issue: with respect to the sale of goods subject to the CSCE, some courts allow the creditor to sue the outstanding debt, although the check is labeled «paid in full» and others are not. The Federal Bankruptcy Act contains certain provisions on procedural protection to ensure that the debtor knowingly re-declares his debt. Under its provisions, the law requires the debtor to have re-confirmed the debt before the debtor goes bankrupt; He then has sixty days to cancel his new declaration. If the insolvent party is a natural person, the law also requires the holding of a trial to explain the consequences of his declaration and the assertion of certain consumer debts is subject to the authorization of the judge if the debtor is not represented by a lawyer. That`s how it goes: suppose a patient goes to the hospital for gallbladder surgery. The cost of the operation was not discussed in detail in advance, although the cost in the metropolitan area is normally around 8,000 $US.

After the operation, the patient and surgeon agree on a bill of $6,000. The patient pays the bill; A month later, the surgeon complained of $2,000 more. Who wins? The patient: he waived his right to challenge the relevance of the fees by accepting a fixed amount to be paid at a given time. The agreement that liquidates the debt is an agreement and enforceable. However, if the patient and the surgeon had agreed before the operation on a tax of $ 8,000 and the patient arbitrarily refused to pay this liquidated debt, unless the surgeon agreed to reduce his fees by half, then the surgeon would have the right to recover the other half in a dispute, because the patient would not have taken into account – would not have given up anything, «has suffered no inconvenience» – for the surgeon`s subsequent consent to reduce fees. Under most state laws, a valid agreement and satisfaction requires at least four elements, usually (1) appropriate purpose, (2) competent parties, (3) the convening of the heads of the parties, and (4) appropriate consideration. In our article, you will find the usual additional requirements for a binding agreement in California. An agreement can be either an explicit agreement or be implied based on the circumstances of the transaction.

Since compliance and satisfaction in a dispute is an affirmative defense, the party who perceives compliance and satisfaction must explicitly assert it and prove it to Trier`s satisfaction. Agreement and satisfaction are a payment of an un liquidated debt. In the case of illiquid debt, if the amount of the debt is disputed, the acceptance of a lower amount relieves the debt.. . . .