Consolidated Edison Co. Of New York Inc. v. Arroll

322 N.Y.S.2d 420 (1971)

Facts

D was a customer of P. D disputed some of his bills on the basis that they exceeded past bills for comparable periods, including the summer of 1967, by too great an amount to have any validity. D questioned the accuracy of the meter and/or the readings taken, and P's statements as to the amount of electricity consumed. After a considerable amount of correspondence had taken place, D sent a letter on December 6, 1969, to the attention of the president of Con Edison, with carbon copies to the company at their local office and the post office box designated for the payment of bills. The letter stated D's disagreement with the amounts of the first three bills and advised that he had arbitrarily picked the sum of $35 as that sum reflected his past experience, and stated further that he was sending three checks for $35 each to the office designated for collection. Each check would bear the legend: 'This check is in full payment and satisfaction of the bill of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., to Mark Arroll, Account Number 26-2726-0191-002 for the period of     to     and negotiation of this check constitutes release of any bills or claims of Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., sometimes known as Con Edison, against Mark Arroll.' The letter went on to state that it is the law that the cashing or mere retention of the checks beyond a reasonable length of time constitutes an accord and satisfaction. D did this for all the bills in dispute. P subsequently replied but restated in its replies that the meter and the readings thereof had been found to be accurate and that the electricity billed for had actually been consumed. P's letter made no mention of and completely ignored the paragraphs advising about the checks. P cashed all the checks and seeks the difference between the payments received and the full amounts of the bills rendered. D's defense is accord and satisfaction.