Reference no: EM131674913

1. Eva and Maria entered into a written contract pursuant to which Eva was to render decorating services for Maria for a total price of $75,000. After the services had been performed, a good faith dispute arose between Eva and Maria over whether all of the services had been properly performed. Eva claimed that the full amount was due, but Maria argued that only $50,000 worth of services had been performed. After several weeks of argument, Maria sent a check for $60,000 to Eva on which Maria had written "payment in full for decorating services."

Eva endorsed the check, without making any further notations on it, deposited it and sued Maria for the remaining $15,000 she claims is due. Judgment for whom? Explain.

Instead of the facts in (a) assume that Eva wrote "under protest" on the check when she endorsed it and, after depositing it, sues Maria for $15,000. What result? Explain.

Instead of the facts in (a) and (b), assume that Eva and Maria had a telephone conversation in which Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction of Maria's obligation under the contract. Maria then sent the check, with a letter referencing the telephone conversation. Eva wrote "under protest" on the check, endorsed and deposited it, and then sued Maria for $15,000. What result? Explain.

2. Digna owed Cecelia $10,000 under a valid loan agreement. Payment was due on September 1. Digna informed Cecelia that she was unable to pay on September 1.

(a) Assume that on September 5, Cecelia orally agreed to accept $8,000 plus the transfer of Digna's stamp collection (which Cecelia admired) as payment in full, if Digna would do so by September 10. Digna did pay the $8,000 and transferred the stamp collection to Cecelia on September 8. The stamp collection had a market value of $1,000. On September 15, Cecelia sued Digna for the $1,000 balance Cecelia claims is due. How much, if anything, will Cecelia recover from Digna? Explain.