Comet not accepting cheques

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Agreed - all fine so far.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Yes, but JB said that effectively "anyone in the chain" can sue "anyone else further up the chain". Sounds like possible multiple debts to me!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Again I say - how long are you meant to keep funds there to cover a cheque that you wrote ages ago??

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I don't agree.

I choose carefully who I deal with, because I don't want any misunderstandings which might cause mafioso to come round and break my legs,

*before* they realise that there was *no need* to do so.

I deal with "Honest Joe" because he's a good man. He won't break my legs - he'll just come along and say "hey ho, that cheque's just bounced!" and I'll say "Oh dear - here's some cash instead".

Why should I be put in a position where someone wants to come & break my legs, without any real good reason, just because the Cheque/Bills of Exchange Acts say so? It's just not fair!!

Well, any mafioso worth his salt is not going to be held back by any "legal right" fiddle-faddle.

Besides, I suspect that JB will confirm that the crossing "a/c payee only" makes the endorsement far from worthless, and is more likely to be itself meaningless. Something along the lines that if its effect is to prevent negotiability then it also ceases technically to be a cheque, and if it does that, then it would be impossible to sue on it at all.

Not to me. It's the same original debt. If the mafioso sues Honest Joe, then Honest Joe can sue you. *Or* the mafioso can sue you directly, bypassing HJ, in which case HJ could not sue you because he has no cause of action. *Or*, possibly, M could sue you and HJ jointly, but only for the original sum between you, not each.

In principle, until the cheque is presented, without limit of time. And that may well be how it's required to be done in France. Here, though, the banks tend to consider cheques "out of date" after 6 months, and a cheque presented very late will be likely to be refused even if funds are there. The drawer won't be flung in jail, but can still be sued on the original cheque if he refuses to either pay cash instead, write a new cheque, or, if his bank will let him, confirms that the original cheque should be paid.

An interesting question here is whether a cheque presented years after it was issued counts as an unsatisfied debt or whether it is different. The importance here is that a debt which remains unacknowledged for 6 years can no longer be enforced. So if you write HJ a cheque and he files it away in a drawer and it gets stuck in a crack, not to resurface until 7 years later, meanwhile you've changed bankers years ago, then HJ could not sue you on the original debt because the last time you acknowledged it (by writing the cheque) is too long ago. But I suspect he might still be able to sue on the cheque.

JB?

Relax, if you're going to happily offer cash instead, I'm sure the mafioso will leave your legs alone. Well, one of them at least, for the inconvenience, you know.

The point is that unlike what one would expect, a cheque payable to HJ is still negotiable/transferrable, and its only advantage over a bearer cheque is that it's safe against loss or theft, as only HJ can present it if he doesn't endorse it.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I'm happy with this bit.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

That's the bit I'm not comfortable with. I never deal with the mafioso - so why do the Cheque/Bills of Exchange Acts require me to do so?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Erm - is this allowed? Didn't someone say that you need to leave the required funds in the account "until the cheque clears"? ;-)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I'd much rather keep *both*! :-)

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I'm simply suggesting that perhaps there should be another type of instrument - one which behaves more as "one would expect" (using your own words).

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Unless (probably more like "until"!) something goes wrong. It inevitably does. Then it *is* of concern, especially if the mafioso are involved!

Apparently not, if you want to steer clear of the wrath of the mafioso!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Exactly my point, entirely! - surely you wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of the mafioso, would you? Simply because you switched banks?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I missed a word - "I'd much rather keep both *intact*"!

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Neither of which are particularly safe (or even possible) in the post!

As in Britain, the validity of a cheque has a time limit.

Colin Bignell

Well, the mafioso would much rather have his money than have to go through this boring rigmarole to protect his public reputation. In private, he's charm personified, I'm sure.

The ATA transfer is possible by post. Ask HJ for his bank account number, branch address, and sort code. Then write to

*your* bank: "Please pay Honest Joe (a/c 01234567) at Bank of Sicily (UK) plc, Fredneedle St (code 65-43-21) the sum of £50 on such-and-such a date." If they get snooty, dress it up like a standing order by adding the words "and annually thereafter until countermanded by me", and then countermand it.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Which all sounds quite a bit more complicated/time-consuming than simply writing out something that *looks* like a cheque, but isn't - ie a "non-transferable" cheque...

Quite. You could ask HJ to send you a pre-printed BGC slip from his paying-in book or the back of his cheque book. Then write him a cheque but don't send it to him, send (or take) it to a bank branch near you (or even post office?) and that'll be it. No chance of it being endorsed to anyone else.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Yeh, I guess - but then HJ may not be too happy, 'cos he might not trust me to go to the bank quickly enough... [He wants his money straight away!]

In message , Rogue writes

Not so, its an instruction to the collecting banker only, not to any interim holders. It merely removes from the collecting banker the status of being a 'holder in due course' and in turn this denies him the protection afforded to such a holder. The collecting bank becomes a mere 'holder' and as this is too risky for most bankers so they wont accept third party 'a/c payee only' cheques for collection. BUT a cheque cashing agency, who indemnify the bank against possible loss, will gladly accept it because they now their rights as a 'holder' are sufficient for their purposes. In fact, I'll check tomorrow, they may still be able to obtain the rights of a 'holder in due course'. In any event, the relationship is sufficiently strong to legally justify the usual mafioso dosh reclamation methods.

In message , Tim writes

Infinitely.

Why not just write 'not negotiable' across the crossing?

If he doesn't trust you to do that, why should he trust your cheque not to bounce? Despite all the legal recourse open to him in that event, either way he won't get his money straight away.

In message , Tim writes

Two things, Think of the cheque merely as a tool of barter.

And, when bills of exchange were our only form of payment and most people didnt even know what a bank was, never mind have an account, the ability to negotiate bills was the only way of completing transactions.

If there is a cheque involved you could accost him in a public place and wave it at him.

DG

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Ah, but say I'm an honest type of bloke really, but - I might tend to forget to do things!

If I give HJ a cheque when I see him, that's OK (there'll be enough in the a/c). But if I say I'll pay-in using a BGC I might, indeed, forget about it. HJ knows me so well!!

That fair taxes the imagination, dear boy.

And come to think of it, why don't all cheques for "normal use" have "not negotiable" printed on them as a matter of course, when that is what most punters expect "a/c payee" to mean already?

JB, I seem to remember you mentioning transferability as distinct from negotiability. Can you explain how a cheque which is not negotiable might still be transferrable? Do you need to add more words to make a cheque do what most people expect it to do, i.e. that nobody except the designated payee can present it, and for no other purpose than to have the funds paid into his account?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Hey - calm down now!! :-)