Civil Law Compromise, Common Law Accord and Satisfaction: Can the Two Doctrines Coexist in Louisiana?

Abstract

Prior to 2007, Louisiana law was wrought with confusion regarding the civil law doctrine of compromise and the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction. Although the Louisiana Civil Code only expressly provided for parties to end or prevent litigation through compromise, some Louisiana courts also utilized accord and satisfaction to determine if parties had settled their disputes. In jurisprudentially incorporating the common law institution, courts were inconsistent as to whether the doctrine led to the same result as the doctrine of compromise. Such inconsistency was troublesome because courts gave no guidance as to when the civilian doctrine of compromise applied instead of the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction, and vice versa. In 2007, the Civil Code was revised to include both the civil law doctrine of compromise and the common law doctrine of accord and satisfaction. This comment examines whether the 2007 revision successfully harmonized the discord between the two settlement mechanisms.

Keywords: compromise, accord and satisfaction, Louisiana Civil Code, civil law