cigarrette companies and novation

[jjetts4]

I am looking for direction; there was a case where there was a lawsuit against a cigarette company. The company sent out checks for less than settlement amount. The plaintiffs deposited those funds and therefore accepted it as tender of payment and the suit is closed.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thank you all.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jjetts4

I am looking for direction; there was a case where there was a lawsuit against a cigarette company. The company sent out checks for less than settlement amount. The plaintiffs deposited those funds and therefore accepted it as tender of payment and the suit is closed.

Can someone point me in the right direction?

Thank you all.

if the company violated a court order by doing less than was ordered by the court, then complain to the court that wrote the order.

[jjetts4]

That is not the point. I am looking for this case to use against banks as a novation of final payment to show that once I sent in final payment and they accepted it that there isnt a darn thing they can do.

I need case law to back it up. I am familiar with the gist of the case but need the actual case to hold water.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by jjetts4

That is not the point. I am looking for this case to use against banks as a novation of final payment to show that once I sent in final payment and they accepted it that there isnt a darn thing they can do.

I need case law to back it up. I am familiar with the gist of the case but need the actual case to hold water.

who are the parties?

are you sure of your understanding of the word "novation"?

It esentially means to replace an agreement with a new one.

[David Merrill]

The novation, speaking from experience was likely on the back of the check. It took the form of an agreement that endorsing the check was acceptance of the final payment and settlement of the debt.

For a short while people were sending $10-$20 checks to get one registered into a two-year agreement with book clubs and record clubs. I would strike through the contract terms and cash the check. The offers quit rather quickly.

Some contact lenses hurt my eyes so I demanded a refund. The optometrist tried to put an agreement above the endorsement line that I would not sue him. I struck that through before cashing. The bank tellers discussed it briefly as though I could not do that. But they cashed it.

I am sure that tobacco companies are completely on the up-and-up and honest. Therefore they would have the plaintiff sign away the right to the full settlement amount. Rather than try to acquire the agreement constructively; they would acquire it explicitly (expressly).

The biggest enemy is conditioning. For instance the bank tellers were trying to convince me I could not strikethrough the agreement by novation. In the State of Colorado one can see the conditioning on the backside of the motor vehicle registration. There is a clause that says you have to pay $10 for not signing the agreement. Then below that is the agreement that you will have insurance on the motor vehicle registered.

If it were law, why would they feel the need to hold you to the contract?


Regards,

David Merrill.

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

If it were law, why would they feel the need to hold you to the contract?


Regards,

David Merrill.

Beat me! Thank david, for clear that out.

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by idknow

who are the parties?

are you sure of your understanding of the word "novation"?

It esentially means to replace an agreement with a new one.

id, you may not totally understand what jj is getting at.

Here's the foundation:

The cig companies settled for X amount of dollars w/ Joe.

Instead of sending the full amount, they sent a paltry portion of it.

When Joe cashed the check, it was a tacit arrangement that the settlement was paid in full.

This substituted the original contract

We are looking for those cases

JJ, have you been doing your due diligence on google?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

id, you may not totally understand what jj is getting at.

Here's the foundation:

The cig companies settled for X amount of dollars w/ Joe.

Instead of sending the full amount, they sent a paltry portion of it.

When Joe cashed the check, it was a tacit arrangement that the settlement was paid in full.

This substituted the original contract

We are looking for those cases

JJ, have you been doing your due diligence on google?

ok, thnks for esplanation.

so were new terms written on the checks which the companies disbursed?

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by idknow

ok, thnks for esplanation.

so were new terms written on the checks which the companies disbursed?

No!! Base on the post the new term is not written on the check. It just a tacit used by cigarette co, cashing the check constitude agreement, which means overide the original contract.

[jjetts4]

Now the group is getting it. If no one has heard of this case which I am 110% positive is real, that is fine. I will find it. I was hoping some people smarter than myself might point me in the right direction.

It would help and behoov the entire group here to know this case as it is VERY powerful.

Thank you all.