COOPER v. BATON ROUGE CARGO SERVICE INC ABC (2020)

Writ application denied.

A tortfeasor writes “accord and satisfaction” (literally that, no more) on a check, in an amount that has been specifically rejected by the tort victim in an email, and mails it, not to the tort victim, but to an LLC, where an employee writes “for deposit only” on the back and deposits it in the corporate account.

The result? An exception of res judicata based on “The Doctrine of Accord and Satisfaction”! Professor Litvinoff in heaven rolls his eyes.

Compromise under Louisiana Civil law is clear and efficient. There must be a writing signed by the parties, or there is none. The bastard common law concept of accord and satisfaction on the other hand invites swearing matches, the civilized version of trial by combat, to determine who knew what and when, and whether there was a “meeting of the minds.” All terribly messy and inefficient, creating more work for trial judges.

And what of corporate identity? One of the main purposes of corporate law is to shield individuals from liability. Only with a special showing can one “pierce the corporate veil” to reach with liability an individual who has misused the corporate structure. But in this case, without any legal analysis, the corporate entity is pierced in reverse, to force the individual tort victim to accept a payment he does not agree with made, not to him, but to the corporation! Embarrassing, even for 2020.

Weimer, J., would grant and docket. Hughes, J., dissents and would grant the writ and assigns reasons.