This section is from the book "The Law Of Contracts", by William Herbert Page. Also available from Amazon: Commercial Contracts: A Practical Guide to Deals, Contracts, Agreements and Promises.
If, however, the debtor attempts to impose any conditions not required by law,1 such as demanding that the tender be accepted as full performance,2 or that a discharge3 or a release in full4 be given, or that a right of appeal be waived,5 or that in connection with the debt in question other claims between the same parties be settled,6 the tender is insufficient. Under a contract for a bond of indemnity a tender made on condition of furnishing a lease for the realty in question, instead of such bond, is insufficient.7 So it has been held that tender of the mortgage ipso facto amount due on a note given for a conveyance of realty is insufficient where coupled with a demand for such conveyance.8 A tender of the amount due on a land contract has been held sufficient, though accompanied by a request for a conveyance.9 Even under a statute allowing the debtor to demand a receipt, he can demand a receipt only for the money paid in, and not a receipt in full.10 So a demand for the surrender of collateral to secure payment of the debt in question as well as other debts prevents a tender from being effective.11 So a tender by A of personalty claimed by B, reserving to A the right to recover its value if it should be held to belong to A, is insufficient.12 So tender of deeds and abstracts under a contract for the sale of realty is insufficient if coupled with a demand for a cash payment not required by the contract.13 The rejection of a valid conveyance tendered by the grantor and a demand for a conveyance of different form prevents a tender of the purchase price from being sufficient.14 Tender of the amount due with request for an assignment of the debt instead of payment is not sufficient.15 The debtor has a right, however, to use language showing that he does not admit that more is due. As long as he does not require the creditor to assent thereto as a condition of payment, the use of such language does not vitiate a tender. Thus tender by debtor of a sum "as a payment of the balance due on that mortgage," is sufficient if the amount is correct.16
5 Mankel v. Belscamper, 84 Wis. 218; 54 N. W. 500.
6 Kennedy v. Moore, 91 la. 39; 58 X. W. 1066.
1 Fields v. Danenhower, 65 Ark. 392; 43 L. R. A. 519; 46 S. W. 938; Jones v. Shuey (Cal.), 40 Pac. 17; Butler v. Hinckley, 17 Colo. 523; Sanford v. Bulkley, 30 Conn. 344; Pulsifer v. Shepard, 36 111. 513; Rose v. Duncan, 49 Ind. 269; Latham v. Hartford, 27 Kan. 249; Chapin v. Chapin, 161 Mass. 138; 36 N. E. 746; Loring v. Cooke, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 48; McEldon v. Pat-ton (Neb.), 93 N. W. 938; Schrandt v. Young, 62 Neb. 254; 86 N. W. 1085; Te Poel v. Shutt, 57 Neb. 592; 78 N. W. 288; Brace v. Doble, 3 S. D. 110; 52 N. W. 586; Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wia. 339.
2 Moore v. Norman, 52 Minn. 83; 38 Am. St. Rep. 526; 18 L. R. A. 359; 53 N. W. 809; Ruppel v. Building Association, 158 Mo. 613; 59 S. W. 1000; Tompkins v. Batie, 11 Neb. 147; 38 Am. Rep. 361; 7 N. W. 747; Noyes v. Wyekoff. 114 N. Y. 204; 21 N. E. 158; Rand v. Harris, 83 N. C. 486; Pershing v. Feinberg, 203 Pa. St. 144; 52 Atl. 22; Doty v. Crawford, 39 S. C. 1; 17 S. E. 377.
3 Richardson v. Chemical Laboratory, 9 Met. (Mass.), 42.
4 Brown v. Gilmore, 8 Me. 107; 22 Am. Dec. 223; Loring v. Cooke, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 48.
5 Beardsley v. Beardsley, 86 Fed. 16; 29 C. C. A. 538.
6 Greenhill v. Hunton (Tex. Civ. App.), 69 S. W. 440.
7 National Bank v. Levanseler, 115 Mich. 372; 73 N. W. 399.
8 Even under a statute allowing the debtor to demand a receipt. Morris v. Ins. Co., 116 Ga. 53; 42 S. E. 474; Elder v. Johnson, 115 Ga. 691; 42 S. E. 51; De Graffen-ried v. Menard, 103 Ga. 651; 30 S. E. 560.
9 Harding v. Giddings, 73 Fed. 335; 19 C. C. A. 508.
10 West v. Ins. Co., 117 la. 147; 90 N. W. 523.
11 Sehmittdiel v. Moore, 101 Mich. 590; 60 N. W. 279; Fidelity, etc.,
Co. v. Ehgleby, 99 Va. 168; 37 S. E. 957.
12 Perkins v. Brewery, 134 Cal. 372; 66 Pac. 482.
13Breja v. Pryne, 94 la. 755; 64 N. W. 669.
14 Hyde v. Heller, 10 Wash. 586; 39 Pac. 249.
15 Cochran v. Jackman (Ky.), 56 S. W. 507; Whittaker v. Roller Mill Co., 55 N. J. Eq. 674; 38 Atl. 289.
16 Davies v. Dow, 80 Minn. 223; 83 N. W. 50.