Osbourn v. Magee Carpet Co.

Citations

• 67 Pa. Super. 100
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 351

Syllabus

<p>Contract — Oral .contract — Evidence—Case for jury — Master and servant — Accord -and satisfaction.</p> <p>In an action to recover a balance alleged to be due on an oral contract of employment where the evidence is conflicting as to the terms of the contract, the plaintiff claiming that he had performed all of the services stipulated for the amount agreed upon, and the defendant claiming that further services were to be rendered, binding instructions cannot be given for defendant, inasmuch as the terms of the contract must be determined by the jury so as to establish what services the plaintiff was bound to render before the admitted contract price became due and payable.</p> <p>In such a case where the admitted contract price was $500, and it appears that after the plaintiff had performed all of the services required of him under his interpretation of the contract, the defendant sent him a check for $100 with a letter and a statement on the face of the check that it was payment in full for services rendered, and the plaintiff retains and uses the check after having changed the written statement on it so as to read that it was for services on account, and also repudiates in a letter defendant’s statement, the acceptance of the check cannot be considered as an accord and satisfaction and preclude the plaintiff from suing for the balance which he claimed.</p>