*1 formality repetition as the of such useless continu- hour later in the same

rights a half events, if there had sequence of

ous change of his status.5

occurred a technical just been said also has

What has point, the defendant’s final

application to failed to tell him after his

that the officers any cease at time to

arrest that he could It not to be doubted questions.

answer being investigated for crime

that when one rights and has cho

has been advised of privilege it is his at questions,

sen to answer

any change time to his mind and remain Nevertheless, so.6

silent if he desires to do here,

under the the trial court was

justified in its conclusion that there was no

violation the defendant’s constitutional

rights, any any unfairness of nature nor him,

imposed because after he had upon warning given adequate rights, of his

been voluntarily incriminating made the complains which he of as

statements about against him.

being used in evidence

We have found no merit in the defend- judg-

ant’s contentions. The verdict and

ment are affirmed. No costs are awarded.

WILKINS, STEWART, JJ., HALL and

concur.

MAUGHAN, J., concurs in result. CHRISTENSEN,

Paul Appellant, ABBOTT,

Weldon S. Defendant Respondent.

No.

Supreme Court of Utah.

May Arizona, Pyle, Miranda v. footnote 2 above. 5. See State v. See 216 Kan. *2 Christensen) (hereafter de- Plaintiff Abbott) (hereafter were involved in fendant ranching operation from a cattle March, April, 1976. The venture 1974 until began purchased 200 black when Abbott on from March Christensen non-negotiable a note giving in return $111,000.00, on demand. On payable for jointly purchased Mountain Ranch and 250 cattle the Blue $703,- price a total of from one Haslem for approximately party contributed 500. Each $173,500 payment, half down of one of $103,- was for ranch and The balance of 500 was for 250 cattle. to purchase price payable Haslem year period percent a at six inter- over placed on Has- est. All cattle were range kept land lem ranch and BLM of under the direction Christensen parties agreed Christensen April, 1976. ranch, and would operate would crop one half of the calf each each receive year. apparent spring

In the became a fail- joint ranching generated ure: calf crops income, and Haslem necessary amount of mort- to foreclose on the had filed an action years two arrears. gage, which was Thus, termi- on nated interest in ranch their “assign- executing an the Haslem cattle agreement”. The ment and assignment by for agreement provided in the ranch and of his interest Christensen Abbott, the Haslem cattle receipt return Christensen for Roosevelt, Mangan, George Edward E. Haslem cattle and the remainder City, plaintiff and Clyde, W. Lake Salt purchase con- liability on the release of appellant. cat- 44 Haslem Abbott received the tract. Hurd, Beless, W. Wallace D. James Salt ranch, but was equity tle and respondent. City, Lake for defendant debt owed on quired to assume all in April $200,000, in- amounted MAUGHAN, Justice: $173,000. cluding delinquencies of over a appeals July, 1976 filed this action in Christensen district court in favor defendant payment to enforce plaintiff’s payment to enforce action grounds of note. Abbott defended on part promissory note. We affirm in satisfaction, viz., the note was issue. accord and remand additional one There is no mutual at the time that an cancelled accord and satisfaction must be in executed, part ment” was of the overall party alleging accord and satisfaction agreement to terminate their venture. The as an affirmative defense has the burden of fact, court, district as the trier of held after proving its occurrence.2 We have defined day a two trial that an accord and satisfaction as “a method of *3 April 28,1976, contract, an accord and satisfaction on settling discharging a a claim assignment comprised of the written arising by substituting from a agree- an oral assumption agreement and agreement such contract or claim an $111,000 note, ment to cancel Abbott’s thereof, and the execution of fully settled the liabilities agreement.” the substituted of the to each other. credible evidence exists Sufficient appeal, plaintiff On in essence asserts the in the record before us to sustain the dis parties did not intend the cancellation of finding trict court’s that Abbott’s contrac the joint note when terminated their by tual debt to Christensen as evidenced ranching operation April, in 1976. In re- discharged by note was their mu claim, viewing apply we the usual stan- tual assent to an executed on dard of review that we assume the trial dispo aspects court to have believed the of the jointly sition ranch and all the cattle supports finding evidence which parties. owned Sufficient considera

judgment, survey the evidence in the discharge clearly tion for exists light most favorable thereto.1 form assumption of Abbott’s of Christen parties disagreed At trial the as to sever- obligation pur sen’s under the contract to aspects joint venture, al of their and the chase the ranch. court obviously believed Abbott’s version of operation intention of the Christensen asserts the evidence of and termination of the venture. Abbott his assent to the of the note cancellation signed “assignment testified he and as- rule, was violative parol sumption agreement” only after Christen- unambiguous since it varies the terms of agreed up sen to tear note and “assignment assumption agreem let Abbott have the black cattle. Christen- stated, ent”.4 We have how note, sen agreed denied he to cancel the and ever, parol evidence rule is not alleges parties only intended to termi- applicable to a which is not intend joint nate their interest in the ranch and complete ed as a final and cattle, as evidenced the writ- Here, expression bargain.5 of their the dis agreement. necessarily trict court’s conclusions contem plate agreement record, finding that the written After a careful review of the expression cannot to the trial not intended as the total deference say, venture, prerogative agreement joint adjudge to end the but credibility of witnesses, simply that the court’s are not the instrument Christen supported by credible evidence as to the sen’s interest in the real estate to Abbott. correct, finding cancella- We believe such a tion of the note. properly hold that the court received the Hansen, Utah, Rodgers Business, 580 P.2d 233 Cannon v. Stevens School of Utah, (1978); Tates, (1977). Refining 560 P.2d Inc. v. Little America Co., Utah, (1975). 535 P.2d 1228 4. See State Bank of Lehi v. (1977). P.2d 413 Tates, Co., Refining Inc. v. Little America Bullfrog Inc. v. 28 Utah 2d I pellant for lien. alleged oral con- evidence of part of the from that respectfully the note.6 dissent cancellation of cerning the opinion which holds that asserts Finally, Christensen agreement” satisfied expenses associat be reimbursed should by Abbott promissory note executed caring for Abbott’s feeding and ed with his 1974. The the set the date of cattle from upon this absolutely no effect parties had 16, 1977, tlement, agreement which previous transaction. to Abbott the cattle were returned men- venture made no terminated stipulation by the pursuant open-court to an previously executed note and tion of the produced evidence at parties. Christensen Abbott nor de- surrendered to neither expended trial that he had stroyed. $60,000 during for the care of cattle, claimed an “assignment and lien7 to that extent. The record indicates joint venture as only related ment” *4 after the date of no demand Abbott very terms: indicated which Christensen settlement his cattle made and entered THIS AGREEMENT Although Abbott asserts feeding. Abbott into and between Weldon S. “wrongfully refus appeal that Christensen Abbott, hereinafter known Mary and R. April the cattle to him after ed” to deliver and Paul Christensen assignees, as and question appears there to be Christensen, known as hereinafter Leah fact as to the assignors. care of the cattle after the feeding and WHEREAS, parties purchasers are findings settlement. The district Agree- that certain Purchase Sales under nature, stating simply conclusory were between April ment dated settled their that Haslem, Joseph above-said an accord and with claims Haslem, Clyde John Haslem Ruth P. finding was no satisfaction. Haslem, sellers, reim claim for made as to Christensen’s WHEREAS, assignors desire expenses incurred after that bursement of in and right, title and interest all of their date, put although Christensen assignees, . to said contract pleadings and question in issue both in the added.) (Emphasis at trial. opinion correctly notes that majority duty it is the We have held an accord that there is no fact on the trial court to make 8 But this one was be in case; in a this action all contested issues for the termina- for the limited must be remanded therefore making without tion of court purpose of a determination to the note or passing reference claimed regarding Christensen’s its execution. purchased by lien for the time 1977. pa- erroneously admitted court The trial unambiguous writ- rol evidence to alter CROCKETT, J., C. and WILKINS following holding of this ing. I deem STEWART, JJ., concur. dispositive of the situation to be Court HALL, Justice: upon: to rule are now called have majority portion I concur with that appears to be a writing what duced to opinion which remands the case it will certain ap- complete and purpose determining the amount due Builders, Exquisite Contracts, Quagliana v. Home generally, 581- §§ 6. See 3 Corbin on U.C.A., 1953, 38-2-1. § opinion. I would reverse and remand in the absence conclusively.presumed, be the amount due on the only to determine fraud, writing contains lien, but to enter par- agreement between whole appellant on the note. Also, of contem- parol evidence ties. conversations, representations poraneous not be received

or will statements adding to terms

purpose varying agreement.1 written one of law question is therefore majority by the

not one of fact as construed Bullfrog (1977) citing Inc. v. P.2d Lehi State Bank of 2d Utah