In message , Tim writes
Different meaning. Its a bit like saying is 'poisonous' stronger than 'open only at this end', if you see what I mean. But in the sense that I think you mean, then YES!
Their use is independent, non mutually exclusive and compatible.
The answer isnt much help, the answer is 'why cant punters accept that something else exits other than the mind set they are stuck in'. The world is becoming full of american thinking small minded macdonald's eating splodges of fat. (Not you of course RR.) But it does seem to me that these days everybody claims something is 'wrong' or 'unfair' just because they dont understand it first time......
Here I was, logging on briefly only to see if there was a chance of a ticket left for Queens of the Stone Age at Slane Castle and all I get is bombardment from all sides form people testing my knowledge of banking law.... Boooo Hoooo...................
Separate concepts. Transferability doesnt convey the chain of responsibility brought by negotiability.
Cant think of anything at the moment. Somebody will no doubt come up with the 'a/c payee only' one, which I have already disproved. I seem to remember a case where the 'or order' bit was replaced by 'only' but cant remember the ruling. Give me time.
In message , Bob Brenchley. writes
No, it becomes stale. But can still be sued upon.
If person A assigns the debt to you then I think you can do just that.
You mean "but", not "although", don't you? What you said makes no sense otherwise.
In particular, your agreement is required if the assignment to you by A of B's debt to A [parse *that* if you can :-)] is supposed to be in settlement of A's debt to you.
But isn't B's agreement also required? Isn't that why loan agreements tend to have a clause in them whereby the borrower agrees to the debt being transferred to another lender? This is partly to protect the borrower from having a debt assigned from a "caring" lender to a mafioso type. Unfortunately, in the case of cheques, the assignability is built in to the way cheques work, and the original drawer's agreement is implicit, at least by default.
Thinking about it it's certainly the case.
A courier service we (used to) use had a van stolen because the driver stopped to do a collection and left the keys in/engine running. The parcel was worth £1,500 but the compensation was only £200. They still invoiced us for their delivery charge! So I refused to pay the bill and found myself being threatened with being taken to court by Alex Lawrie Factors. Who, by coincidence, were owned By Lloyds Bank (our business bankers). So I gave the Bank Manager a hard time the next time I saw him.
Bet he still has nightmares over that!
DG
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.