Accord and satisfaction bars arbitration unless a settlement is credibly shown to be vitiated by coercion or undue influence.

A claim settled by acceptance of a full and final payment will not remain arbitrable unless the settlement itself is first shown to be invalid on credible evidence. Where accord and satisfaction is alleged, the court must examine whether the settlement was voluntary and binding before any reference to arbitration. A party alleging coercion or undue influence must place reliable material showing free consent was vitiated by unlawful pressure or domination of will. On the stated facts, acceptance of the final bill and related certificate, together with the absence of contemporaneous protest, supported a binding settlement and defeated the later plea of duress.

---

---

Issues: Whether a claim settled by receipt of payment described as full and final settlement could still be referred to arbitration on the plea that the settlement was obtained by coercion or undue influence.

Analysis: A dispute as to accord and satisfaction is not automatically for the arbitrator where the Court must first decide whether there was in fact a voluntary and binding settlement. If the parties have finally settled the claim and payment has been accepted unconditionally, no arbitrable dispute survives. Where coercion or undue influence is alleged, the party avoiding the settlement must place credible material showing that consent was not free and that the other side dominated its will or used unlawful pressure to obtain an unfair advantage. On the facts, the payment was accepted with signatures on the final bill and related tax certificate, the contemporaneous letters did not allege coercion, and the later plea of duress was unsupported by reliable material.

Conclusion: The alleged settlement was held to be voluntary and binding, and the subsequent plea of coercion or undue influence was rejected as an afterthought. No arbitrable dispute survived for reference to arbitration.

Final Conclusion: The application for appointment of an independent arbitrator failed because the claim had already been concluded by accord and satisfaction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a claim is finally settled and the settlement is accepted voluntarily, a later assertion of coercion or undue influence will not revive an arbitrable dispute unless the settlement is first shown to be invalid on credible evidence.

---