"The parties orally contracted for Pendergrass Con-struction to perform grading and other work on Ingram's property for the price of $2,500.00. After Pendergrass Construction began the work, Ingram requested additional work. The parties did not dis-cuss any additional payment for this work. After""the work was complete, Pendergrass Construction sent Ingram an invoice for $9,073.00. Ingram told Pendergrass Construction he would notpay that amount and sent them a cashier's check marked "pd in full" for $1,500.00, which was the balance due on the original $2,500.00 price. Pendergrass Construc-tion marked through the "pd in full" notation on the check, cashed the check, and then notified Ingram that they considered the check to be a credit against the total amount owed. Pendergrass Construction later brought suit against Ingram to refute an accord and satisfaction and argued that the parties entered into two separate contracts, one for $2,500.00 and another for additional work above and beyond the original agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of Pendergrass Construction. This appeal followed. How should the court decide? Do you believe the parties entered into an accord and satisfaction? Why or why not?"