Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)

Citation
Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)
Parent Document
Tuttle v. Martin, 352 A.2d 321 (1975)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1975-05-05

Full Text

862 chars
The court is not persuaded that the endorsement, "accept for use and occupancy only," sustains the plaintiff's position. "When an offer of a sum less than the amount claimed to be due is accompanied *Page 300 
by acts or declarations which make the acceptance conditional upon an acceptance in full satisfaction of the debt and the offer is in such form as to clearly bring this home to the creditor, the latter must either refuse the offer or accept it upon that condition."Perryman Burns Coal Co. v. Seaboard Coal Co.,128 Conn. 70, 73; Hanley Co. v. American CementCo., 108 Conn. 469, 471. See also Crowder v. ZionBaptist Church, Inc., 143 Conn. 90, 99. The court finds that the plaintiff did in fact accept the defendant's check in payment of rent and such acceptance in fact waived the claimed forfeiture or termination. Judgment may enter for the defendant.