Jeffrey Johnson is a legal writer with a focus on personal injury. He has worked on personal injury and sovereign immunity litigation in addition to experience in family, estate, and criminal law. He earned a J.D. from the University of Baltimore and has worked in legal offices and non-profits in Maryland, Texas, and North Carolina. He has also earned an MFA in screenwriting from Chapman Univer...

Full Bio →

Written by

UPDATED: Jun 19, 2018

Advertiser Disclosure

It’s all about you. We want to help you make the right legal decisions.

We strive to help you make confident insurance and legal decisions. Finding trusted and reliable insurance quotes and legal advice should be easy. This doesn’t influence our content. Our opinions are our own.

Editorial Guidelines: We are a free online resource for anyone interested in learning more about legal topics and insurance. Our goal is to be an objective, third-party resource for everything legal and insurance related. We update our site regularly, and all content is reviewed by experts.

It is a common myth that if someone writes “paid in full” on the memo line of a check, and the check is cashed, then the person cashing it has actually agreed to accept that amount as payment in full and is barred from attempting to collect any further balance due. Fortunately for creditors, businesses, merchants and service people—though unfortunately for debtors—this is not the case at all.

One person may not unilaterally alter a contract, such as a contract for the provision of goods or services or a promissory note. This includes oral, or spoken, agreements as well as written ones. Instead, changing the terms, such as to reduce the amount owed, requires the agreement of both parties.

The person writing the check may attempt to argue that by writing “paid in full,” he offered to settle the debt for that amount, and that by cashing the check the other party accepted the offer, forming a new agreement to accept that amount as full payment. However, a contract requires consideration; one party must pay or provide something to the other party. Furthermore, the consideration must be something that the party is not already obligated to pay or provide.

In this case, person A owes money to person B. If person A offers person B some portion of that, that money will not constitute consideration since A had to pay that much—and more!—any way. The preexisting obligation negates the check’s value as consideration, and without consideration, no agreement or contract would be formed. Without a new agreement or contract being formed, the first person, person A, cannot unilaterally (on his own) alter the terms of the existing obligation. When you are owed money by a person, you can cash a check for less than the full amount due to you without writing off the balance or accepting that check as payment in full. You’d have to credit it againtst the balance owed, but that’s the only obligation. Of course, you can decided to accept less than full payment, if you’re in a charitable mood, or think that’s the most you’re going to get, or think that the relationship with the client is sufficiently important. But that must be your choice—it can’t be unilaterally forced on you.