Wong v. Paisner
Appeals Court of Massachusetts
436 N.E.2d 990 (1982)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Wong (plaintiff) agreed to prepare mechanical drawings for Paisner (defendant) for a lump sum of $1,000. Wong claimed that the agreement was later modified to substitute an hourly rate for the work. Paisner paid Wong a lump sum of $500. Wong then sent a bill to Paisner for $5,400, which represented 235 hours of work at $25 per hour, less the $500 that had been paid. Paisner sent Wong a check for $1,000 with a letter that stated that the $1,000 represented payment in full and that the $500 that had previously been paid was an attempt to appease Wong in light of their misunderstanding over the terms of the contract. Wong deleted the phrase “payment in full” from the check and deposited it. Wong sued Paisner for the remainder owed. The trial court refused Paisner’s request to instruct the jury on accord and satisfaction. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Wong for $4,400. Paisner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
