• Current through October 23, 2012

(1) A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest", or the like are sufficient.

(2) Paragraph (1) of this section does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.

(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 637, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Mar. 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-249, § 2(b)(2), 42 DCR 467.)



1. This section provides machinery for the continuation of performance along the lines contemplated by the contract despite a pending dispute, by adopting the mercantile device of going ahead with delivery, acceptance, or payment "without prejudice," "under protest," "under reserve," "with reservation of all our rights," and the like. All of these phrases completely reserve all rights within the meaning of this section. The section therefore contemplates that limited as well as general reservations and acceptance by a party may be made "subject to satisfaction of our purchaser," "subject to acceptance by our customers," or the like.

2. This section does not add any new requirement of language of reservation where not already required by law, but merely provides a specific measure on which a party can rely as that party makes or concurs in any interim adjustment in the course of performance. It does not affect or impair the provisions of this Act such as those under which the buyer's remedies for defect survive acceptance without being expressly claimed if notice of the defects is given within a reasonable time. Nor does it disturb the policy of those cases which restrict the effect of a waiver of a defect to reasonable limits under the circumstances, even though no such reservation is expressed.

The section is not addressed to the creation or loss of remedies in the ordinary course of performance but rather to a method of procedure where one party is claiming as of right something which the other believes to be unwarranted.

3. Judicial authority was divided on the issue of whether former Section 1-207  (present subsection (1)) applied to an accord and satisfaction.  Typically the cases involved attempts to reach an accord and satisfaction by use of a check tendered in full satisfaction of a claim.   Subsection (2) of revised Section 1-207 resolves this conflict by stating that Section 1-207 does not apply to an accord and satisfaction.  Section 3-311 of revised Article 3 governs if an accord and satisfaction is attempted by tender of a negotiable instrument as stated in that section.   If Section 3-311 does not apply, the issue of whether an accord and satisfaction has been effected is determined by the law of contract.   Whether or not Section 3-311 applies, Section 1- 207 has no application to an accord and satisfaction.

Prior Codifications

1981 Ed., § 28:1-207.

Legislative History of Laws

For legislative history of D.C. Law 10-249, see Historical and Statutory Notes following § 28:1-201.