A concordance and satisfaction are to be distinguished from liberation. A downgrade is a waiver of a right that can be granted free of charge (free of charge) or for insufficient consideration, while an agreement and satisfaction is debt or receivable relief through the acceptance of a payment agreed as full satisfaction Holman v. Simborg, 152 Fig. App.3d 453, 456 (Fig. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1987). Consideration is therefore not a necessary element for liberation, but serves for coherence and satisfaction. In addition, a claim is satisfied if the person against whom the claim is invoked demonstrates that the applicant or a representative of the applicant directly responsible for the undertaking at issue knew, within a reasonable time before the confiscation of the act was initiated, that the document had been offered in full satisfaction. In many landlord-tenant disputes, the issue of compliance and satisfaction may be raised by the tenant to be exempted from the terms of the rental agreement. This is especially true when the tenant is either late in rents or is somehow dissatisfied with the premises.

When trying to get out of the rental agreement, a tenant can present the landlord with a check for less than the amount due, with the language of the check stating: “This check is the full payment and complete and final satisfaction of all claims.” What the tenant can attempt is called “agreement and satisfaction”. This article explains issues related to compliance and satisfaction under Mississippi law. The performance of an agreement fulfills both the agreement and the initial contractual obligation. In other words, if Thelma Louise gives away her beach house and Louise accepts it, the agreement is fulfilled, and so thelma has the initial obligation to pay Louise $100,000. Agreement and satisfaction are a payment of an un liquidated debt. For example, a client is responsible for building a one-owner garage for 35,000 $US. The contract provided for $US 17,500 prior to the start of work, the payment of $US 10,000 during various construction phases and a final payment of $7500 upon completion. Once completed, the owner complained of a lower quality of work and refused to make the final payment. After a reciprocal settlement agreement, the client accepted US$4,000 as full payment.

A new contract was concluded by offer, acceptance and consideration. The idea is that for a saving of $ 3500, the owner abandons what belongs to him, a well-built garage. The contracting authority waives its right to the full price in order to avoid legal action for a poor quality service. When compliance and satisfaction occurred, the owner waived his right to sue for a poor quality performance, and the contracting authority waived his right to sue the US$7500 that is due under the original contract. . . .