Suit fоr an account stated, upon appellant’s (Chisler’s) petition, was tried to the court. After presentation of all the evidence, judgment was еntered for the debt- or (Staats). The claim was for the unpaid balance of $601.90 on a debt of $5,001.90, the original obligation having allegedly been acknоwledged by the defendants, as the balance due between the parties for work performed by Chisler.
The parties entered into an oral contract for Chisler to drill a well and install accessory equipment to provide water for respondents’ home at Lone Jack, Missouri. The work was begun in November, 1969, and completed in December, 1969. Upon completion of the work appellant submitted a bill for $5,001.90, less a $1,000.00 advance payment made by respondents.
Appellant testified that respondents neither made objection to, nor expressed surprise at, the bill when it was presеnted for payment. Respondents admit that there was no objection made to the bill but counters that there was surprise expressed at the size оf the bill. Both parties agreed that respondents were to pay only $1,000.00
Respondents made additional payments to Chisler of $1,000.00 in January, 1970, $500.00 in February, and $400.00 in April for the work performed, reducing the outstanding balance to $601.90. In June, respondents notified Chisler that the parties should meet and discuss the charges before any more payments were made.
Each of the partial payments made in 1970 were accompanied by letters signed by Staats. The letter included with the January payment stated:
“You’ll find inclosеd [sic] a check for $1,000.00. On checking with the bank I found I can’t cash in any of my savings certificates till [sic] they come due. (Didn’t know your bill would be so much.) I hope this hеlps till [sic] I get the rest to you.” (Plaintiff’s Exhibit #2)
Included with the $500.00 payment in February was another letter signed by respondents, the relevant portion of which states:
“Enclosed you’ll find a check for $500.-00. This is all I can get you now as I mentioned before I have savings certificates that come due next month and I will get the balance to you then.” (Plaintiff’s Exhibit #4)
At trial, respondents contended, first, that there was no acknowledgment and promise to pay the account when rendered in December, 1969, and, second, satisfaction of the debt had been made in accordance with the original oral contract. Respоndents testified that the charges for the drilling and casing for the well were calculated at $3.00 per foot rather than $2.50 per foot as contracted and that a $75.00 installation charge was made contrary to the original contract. These alleged variations in the terms of the contract resulted in an overcharge of $664.50, but when the account due reached $601.90, Staats “was willing to get out of it for what (he) figured was fair.”
An account stated is an agreement between parties, having had previous financial transactions, that a balance struck is correct and due between the parties, and a promise by the debtor, either express or implied, to pay the balance. 1 C.J.S. Account Stated § 1; Stewart v. St. Louis & S. Ry. Co.,
An essential element of an action for an account stated is the promise, either expressed or implied, to pay the agreed upon balance. Quint v. Loth-Hoffman Clothing Co.,
The two letters from the respondents, each including an enclosure of partial payment, are clearly unconditional acknowledgments of the account due. Gerstner v. Lithocraft Studios, supra. (Also see Conkling v. Quellmalz Lumber & Mfg.
Even if the letters did not objectively manifest an unconditional agreement that the account was correctly stated and a promise to pay the balance due, the respondents retained the account without objection for more than a reasonable time. The circumstances of a particular case determine the reasonable period of time thаt an account may be retained without objection. Brown v. Kimmel,
Staats testified that on advice of сounsel he had decided, prior to making the January 1970 payment, not to pay the account as rendered. No expression of this intent appears in the correspondence of January and February between the parties. Not until a meeting between the parties in June, 1970 did the respondents express to Chisler their dissatisfaction with the account rendered. Under the circumstances of this case, six months is a more than reasonablе time for respondents to have objected to the account. [See Mulford v. Caesar,
Neither is it contended, nor is there substantial evidence, that respondents’ conduct and statements at the initial rendering constituted such direct and positive refusal to pay and denial of liability so as to negate the presumption of silence as acceptance and an implied promise to рay. Stewart v. St. L. & S. Ry. Co.,
Therefore, even granting deference to the opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses, there is still substantial undisputed evidence adverse to the judgment rendered below. That judgment being clearly erroneous, the cause is reversed and remanded, with direction that judgment be entered for plaintiff for $601.90, and for costs.