Do I have any legal rights as a Small Business

What is the name of your state? CA
We are owners of a small delivery svc. My husband hired 3 workers and did a move job for a couple. The fee was $1300.00. They paid 500 in cash and at the end of a 13.25 hour long move they paid the balance with a check. There were no complaints or dmgs noted that evening at 11pm. The next day they called and said there were black marks along the 8 ft long wall and they wanted us to pay for the dmgs but wouldn't let us come back to see or repair the wall ourselves. We said that we didn't think we did it because no one saw it the night before and there were 5 people but we would take responsibility for the dmg but wanted 2 estimates. The estimate was $150. but they refused to get 2. When we told them we wanted the balance $650. by Mon. or we would take them to small claims, they stated that they would report us to Better Business because our estimate said the move was approx. 6-8 hours and they wanted to re-calculate the contract. I said that that was unacceptable since they agreed to the terms when they wrote the check for 800. Now they have sent us a ck for 562.50 their calculation of the balance due. The principle of the whole deal makes us want to make them pay the full balance of $650.00. Can we bill them for the balance each month with fin.chgs or late fees and report them to a credit agency if they don't pay or take them to small claims or do they get away with recalculating their own balance.

jiaggi said:

Can we bill them for the balance each month

Click to expand...

Yes.

with fin.chgs or late fees

Click to expand...

You can only charge additional fees/charges IF they are specifically noted in your WRITTEN agreement. If not, you can't.

and report them to a credit agency if they don't pay or take them to small claims

Click to expand...

You can do either or both.

My additional comment:

Does the check have have any restrictive endorsement - anything additional written on the front or back - like "payment in full" or "paid in full discharge"? Did it come with a letter that said anything like that?

The questions concern the possibility of an "accord and satisfaction", which is an agreement to accept a lesser sum than is owing as full payment for a debt. Some states would treat your customer's debt as satisfied, if you cashed such a check, rather than returning it. Your state won't. It requires more but, if that type of language appears, recognize where a debtor is trying to take you. If similar language appears, you could feel safe in cashing the check in your state. You could feel extra safe, if you wrote an note back to say that you got the payment and were cashing the check, but it was not being accepted in satisfaction of the debt. As noted, in some other states, you would have to return the payment, if you wanted to pursue full balance.

dcatz said:

The questions concern the possibility of an "accord and satisfaction", which is an agreement to accept a lesser sum than is owing as full payment for a debt. Some states would treat your customer's debt as satisfied, if you cashed such a check, rather than returning it. Your state won't.

Click to expand...

Not really true. California has a 'special' application of "accord and satisfaction". Where a check or draft is tendered by the debtor and the words "payment in full" or other words of similar meaning are noted on the check or draft, the acceptance of the check or draft does not constitute an accord and satisfaction if the creditor protests by striking out or otherwise deleting the notation, or if the acceptance of the check or draft was inadvertent or without knowledge of the notation. Exceptions apply, and creditors should read California Civil Code Section 1526:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=civ&group=01001-02000&file=1521-1526

Thanx, JETX -

Before we confuse the OP about something that, in any event was an afterthought to the original post and your reply, I want to be clear that I did not intend the tail to wag the dog.

We're reading the same statute. I'm not sure where we depart or what was "not really true". If the creditor receives an instrument with a restrictive endorsement and deposits without striking but with a concurrent, collateral protest - a letter to the debtor: "I got your check and I'm cashing it, but not in settlement of your debt" - that would be and has been treated as adequate protest sufficient to avoid a discharge in the OP's state. An exception would exist, if there was prior notice of a dispute and knowledge that a restictively endorsed instrument was going to tendered with the intention that it be negotiated in full settlement.

Knowledge of a valid dispute is the common thread in state law..

The OP's state wished to avoid a "have your cake and eat it too" result, where there is a valid, recognized dispute and wished to avoid situations where a debtor could perfect an accord and satisfaction by paying to a bank's lock box or a general repository and having the instrument negotiated without even being seen.

If you felt that confusion was engendered, I defer to your conclusion and hope we will resolve it. My primary concern was with recognition that a discharge could occur and also can be avoided, because state law determines what can and can't be done and it varies. Unlike California, few authorize striking and negotiating, some require advance rather than concurrent written rejection, some would force a payment return rather than permit an alteration and others go farther than California and permit repayment after negotiation.