Please Help or advice

It *can* but it *shouldn't*. Doing so automatically secures a judgement against you if the payee should be minded to sue you on the cheque, or so I understand (from you, IIRC).

Then you should not stop the cheque. You should ask for a repair, replacement, or refund. Mind you, if you were not buying from a shop, this is a bit difficult. If you bought a second hand item from someone, technically your only recourse available is to sue for breach of contract, since the seller could still sue you on the cheque.

Depending on how confident he is that your claim against him would not stand up, he might well decide not to bother. From that point of view stopping the cheque might be a shrewd pragmatic move (though you'd still be out the stopping fee, which with other methods you might not be). It's still "morally" a wrong thing to do, and in France, AIUI, it would be a criminal offence no matter what valid grievance you might have against the payee.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

No, not quite right. I've seen many others say it though.

A mere payee can never be a 'holder in due course' and so if the payee sues there is no statutory right of satisfaction and the drawer can file a counter claim.

But a subsequent holder of a cheque or bill (i.e. somebody to whom the original payee(in the case of a cheque) or drawer (in the case of a bill) has endorsed the cheque) who attains the good title of 'holder in due course' would have a right of action against every other party to the cheque and could prove merely on the evidence of the dishnoured cheque.

But the 1992 Cheques Act removed the protection that a bank could use by claiming that in collecting a cheque for somebody other that the payee, in the normal course of business, for value, and everything else being in order on the face of it (i.,e. it was endorsed etc.,) that they would attain the unassailable title of 'holder in due course'. The act says that if the cheque is crossed 'a/c payee only' then the bank can not attain that status and would merely be a 'holder'. Banks then decided to preprint all cheque forms with the 'a/c payee only' as a blanket measure and then they could refuse to collect third party cheques. Anyway, the point is that the 'a/c payee only' restricts the negotiability of a cheque.

In message , John Boyle writes

Rubbish Boyle... it restricts the transferability! (sorry).