Cece Hylton and Edward Meztista had a partner- ship, MMD, which had an advertising account with a grocery store. Pursuant to the partnership agreement, Hylton and Meztista would equally divide the profits MMD earned once expenses were paid. They also agreed to equally divide the partnership's liabilities. From the record, it appears that the grocery store, which paid MMD $30,000 a month, was the only account the partnership handled. When the grocery store was sold, MMD lost the account. In January 1998, Meztista provided Hylton with a two-page document, which he said was an accounting of MMD's profits and expenses. The bottom line showed a balance of $35,235.67, of which Hylton was owed $17,617.84. Hylton, however, questioned certain expenses included in the accounting and asked Meztista to let her review the partnership's books. Hylton was never given the opportunity to see the books. Meztista did not return her telephone calls, nor did he provide her with an explanation regarding the expenses shown on the accounting. In April 1998, Meztista gave Hylton a check for $17,617.84, which was drawn on MMD's account. The face of the check stated that it was "final payment/payment in full." Hylton cashed the check, but wrote on it that she was doing so "under protest." She added: "Cashing this check does not constitute my acceptance of this amount as payment in full." Did writing "final payment/payment in full" on the check create an accord and satisfaction? What, if any, was the effect of Hylton's cashing the check after writing "under protest" on it? If you were the court, how would you decide and why?