![]() |
One for the legal eagles...
If a merchant loses a check, is the customer responsible to reissue
another one when the merchant requests it? Or is it the customer's good luck? Assume that the customer and merchant have some bad blood; maybe the merchant refused to accept something the customer wanted to return, and that this lost check turns out to be an opportunity for the customer to get some just desserts. Can the customer say "ha! I gave you a valid check, my responsbility ended there. You lost it, you eat it." --riverman (of course, this is hypothetical, and anything that is said here is merely hypothetical and not really legal advice...) |
riverman wrote:
If a merchant loses a check, is the customer responsible to reissue another one when the merchant requests it? Or is it the customer's good luck? Assume that the customer and merchant have some bad blood; maybe the merchant refused to accept something the customer wanted to return, and that this lost check turns out to be an opportunity for the customer to get some just desserts. Can the customer say "ha! I gave you a valid check, my responsbility ended there. You lost it, you eat it." --riverman (of course, this is hypothetical, and anything that is said here is merely hypothetical and not really legal advice...) IANAL. However, I will offer my opinion. You don't owe him anything - you paid, I assume you have a receipt. His loss of your check is not your problem. And given that the vendor lost whatever goodwill he might have earned with you in the deal, you should feel no obligation. However, I would offer him a deal, just out of the kindness of my heart - potentially earning yourself some goodwil for future use (assuming you want that). First I would ask him to pay your check cancellation fee at your bank. That check is still out there somewhere and either your vendor or whoever finds it might still cash it. Cutting a second check has the potential of causing you to be doubly charged. The vendor should see the logic of that. If he won't cover the cancellation fee, just walk. The vendor has screwed the pooch. Instead of offering a second check, offer the return of the merchandise (what you wanted to do in the first place). If the vendor is at all logical he should see that this is a fair deal. All he's out is the check cancellation fee which is not unreasonable given they he's at fault for losing the check. You end up with zero cost (except for your time), potentially some goodwill, and no moral or ethical pain. Your good karma will be repaid with eternal happiness (or a ham sandwich, which we all know is even better). -- Stan Gula http://gula.org/roffswaps |
riverman wrote:
If a merchant loses a check, .....etc. (of course, this is hypothetical, and anything that is said here is merely hypothetical and not really legal advice...) I called and asked my old friend John Roberts. He said, "Gone with the Wind." HTH. JR |
Even with a stop payment, the check can be cashed! A check cashing service
gets the money even with a stop payment. True, but sad. Teh radio lawer on KGO San Francisco was explaining it a few weeks ago. "Stan Gula" wrote in message news:0pZWe.5201$iv5.274@trndny03... riverman wrote: If a merchant loses a check, is the customer responsible to reissue another one when the merchant requests it? Or is it the customer's good luck? Assume that the customer and merchant have some bad blood; maybe the merchant refused to accept something the customer wanted to return, and that this lost check turns out to be an opportunity for the customer to get some just desserts. Can the customer say "ha! I gave you a valid check, my responsbility ended there. You lost it, you eat it." --riverman (of course, this is hypothetical, and anything that is said here is merely hypothetical and not really legal advice...) IANAL. However, I will offer my opinion. You don't owe him anything - you paid, I assume you have a receipt. His loss of your check is not your problem. And given that the vendor lost whatever goodwill he might have earned with you in the deal, you should feel no obligation. However, I would offer him a deal, just out of the kindness of my heart - potentially earning yourself some goodwil for future use (assuming you want that). First I would ask him to pay your check cancellation fee at your bank. That check is still out there somewhere and either your vendor or whoever finds it might still cash it. Cutting a second check has the potential of causing you to be doubly charged. The vendor should see the logic of that. If he won't cover the cancellation fee, just walk. The vendor has screwed the pooch. Instead of offering a second check, offer the return of the merchandise (what you wanted to do in the first place). If the vendor is at all logical he should see that this is a fair deal. All he's out is the check cancellation fee which is not unreasonable given they he's at fault for losing the check. You end up with zero cost (except for your time), potentially some goodwill, and no moral or ethical pain. Your good karma will be repaid with eternal happiness (or a ham sandwich, which we all know is even better). -- Stan Gula http://gula.org/roffswaps |
riverman wrote:
If a merchant loses a check, is the customer responsible to reissue another one when the merchant requests it? Or is it the customer's good luck? Assume that the customer and merchant have some bad blood; maybe the merchant refused to accept something the customer wanted to return, and that this lost check turns out to be an opportunity for the customer to get some just desserts. Can the customer say "ha! I gave you a valid check, my responsbility ended there. You lost it, you eat it." --riverman (of course, this is hypothetical, and anything that is said here is merely hypothetical and not really legal advice...) i have no intentions of giving legal advice here...but, my personal feeling is just because [someone] might have the right to do a thing doesn't make it the right thing to do. my personal approach would be, if the merchant lost the check, i'd offer to issue another check less any stop payment charges incurred by my bank for stopping payment on the lost check. it is fair...the merchant absorbs the cost of his mistake, and [someone] is neither dishonest nor dishonorable in the transaction by getting something for less than the agreed consideration. btw, technically, the payment isn't honestly made until the check is honored and paid by the payor's bank. i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... |
Jeff Miller wrote:
riverman wrote: If a merchant loses a check, is the customer responsible to reissue another one when the merchant requests it? Or is it the customer's good luck? snip i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... golf clap -- TL, Tim --------------------------- http://css.sbcma.com/timj/ |
isn't a check nothing more than a promise to pay?
|
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 15:16:26 -0400, Jeff Miller
wrote: (snipped) i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... Not a legal type, but if you got merchandise for the check, stop the payment and write another check or return the merchandise. Otherwise, while I doubt it could be called theft, it'd have some odour of it morally. In any case, stopping payment is the thing to do. How sure is the merchant that the check is really lost? How sure is the check writer that the merchant is telling the truth, since there is bad blood? Cyli r.bc: vixen. Minnow goddess. Speaker to squirrels. Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. http://www.visi.com/~cyli email: lid (strip the .invalid to email) |
"Jeff Miller" wrote in message news:5YZWe.26324$hp.19936@lakeread08... ...i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... Then, pray tell, what purpose or meaning can possibly adhere to participating in discussions in ROFF? :( Wolfgang who begins to sense life's raison d'etre slipping away as inexorably as its quickly diminishing remaining moments. |
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jeff Miller" wrote in message news:5YZWe.26324$hp.19936@lakeread08... ...i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... Then, pray tell, what purpose or meaning can possibly adhere to participating in discussions in ROFF? :( Wolfgang who begins to sense life's raison d'etre slipping away as inexorably as its quickly diminishing remaining moments. :) but, there are moral compasses spinning about seeking "true" guidance in even less worthy venues, eh? and...as i continue to sort through yesterday's offerings, i trust i shall soon discover a recounting of your adventures in the "true north"? jeff |
"riverman" wrote in news:1126978035.272239.98130
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: Can the customer say "ha! I gave you a valid check, my responsbility ended there. You lost it, you eat it." Only if the customer didn't care what people thought of him. If I were the customer, I'd offer to repay, less the fee for stopping the check. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
"Bill McKee" wrote in
link.net: Even with a stop payment, the check can be cashed! A check cashing service gets the money even with a stop payment. True, but sad. Teh radio lawer on KGO San Francisco was explaining it a few weeks ago. Yeah, they might get the cash, but not from your account. The bank is ultimately responsible. -- Scott Reverse name to reply |
"Jeff Miller" wrote in message news:DIxXe.27182$hp.18722@lakeread08... Wolfgang wrote: "Jeff Miller" wrote in message news:5YZWe.26324$hp.19936@lakeread08... ...i'd not counsel compromising or losing one's principles and integrity by assuming the same repugnant characteristics despised in the other person... Then, pray tell, what purpose or meaning can possibly adhere to participating in discussions in ROFF? :( Wolfgang who begins to sense life's raison d'etre slipping away as inexorably as its quickly diminishing remaining moments. :) but, there are moral compasses spinning about seeking "true" guidance in even less worthy venues, eh? Well, that's a real poser. Hm......less worthy venues......the mind reels! :) and...as i continue to sort through yesterday's offerings, i trust i shall soon discover a recounting of your adventures in the "true north"? Not just yet, I'm afraid. I have a couple of things I need to get caught up on. I'll try to have something written up later today or tomorrow morning. For now, just a teaser. Upstream is not the way to go on the Sturgeon......... Wolfgang |
Wolfgang wrote:
"Jeff Miller" wrote in message For now, just a teaser. Upstream is not the way to go on the Sturgeon......... fewer mosquitoes downstream? jeff |
Jeff could have answered that one without the benefit of Law School, I
think. bruce h |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:42 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter