Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-311
This is the official text of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 42a-3-311, part of Connecticut’s Gen. Stat — part of the compiled statutory law of Connecticut, published by the state as "Gen. Stat." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.
Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.
Sec. 42a-3-311. Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.
Official statutory text
(b) Unless subsection (c) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.
(c) Subject to subsection (d), a claim is not discharged under subsection (b) if either of the following applies:
(1) The claimant, if an organization, proves that (i) within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place, and (ii) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(2) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within ninety days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with paragraph (1)(i).
(d) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.
Cited. 236 C. 750.
Subsec. (a):
Defendants' letter stating that check was tendered as full satisfaction of their indebtedness had no legal effect since there was no basis for a good faith dispute about defendants' indebtedness to plaintiff or about the amount of defendants' indebtedness for interest. 72 CA 319.
Subsec. (d):
Section's plain and unambiguous language does not afford debtor an independent means of proving accord and satisfaction. 98 CA 784.
(c) Subject to subsection (d), a claim is not discharged under subsection (b) if either of the following applies:
(1) The claimant, if an organization, proves that (i) within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place, and (ii) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.
(2) The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within ninety days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This paragraph does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with paragraph (1)(i).
(d) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.
Cited. 236 C. 750.
Subsec. (a):
Defendants' letter stating that check was tendered as full satisfaction of their indebtedness had no legal effect since there was no basis for a good faith dispute about defendants' indebtedness to plaintiff or about the amount of defendants' indebtedness for interest. 72 CA 319.
Subsec. (d):
Section's plain and unambiguous language does not afford debtor an independent means of proving accord and satisfaction. 98 CA 784.
Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site
Need a lawyer in Connecticut?
Find a Connecticut lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the
Open US Law dataset
(Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine
(Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.