Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: "Tumbleweed" <thisaccountneverread@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:07:06 +0100
"john boyle" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:feJHrhBfotEDFwEO@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In message <3nf1r7F17hldU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tumbleweed
> <thisaccountneverread@xxxxxxxxx> writes
>
>>not sure JB has ever answered what happens if X forges a cheque on Y's
>>account and pays it to A, and it isnt noticed by Y for some time, lets say
>>a
>>month or two, but enough for the cheque to have cleared. When it is
>>discovered to be a forgery (this might takea long court case I suppose) ,
>>then either the money is 'recalled' from A, and A is out of pocket, or it
>>isnt and B, or B's bank, is. (lets assume at this point that X is long
>>gone)
>
> Who's B? Is it really Y on a bad day? What about Z? :-)
>
> Lets talk names. The drawee doesn't bounce the cheque and the payee
> doesn't have the dosh 'recalled'. The drawee must refund the account
> holder unless the account holder is estopped from denying liability. (i.e.
> he owed the dosh to the payee anyway; or even though knowledgeable of the
> forger forging cheques in the past had done nothing to stop it).
> (Greenwood V Barclays 1933, Brown V Westminster Bank 1964 ;and Bills of
> Exchange Act S24) It then becomes a matter between the drawee and the
> forger. If investigations reveal that the payee is in on this in some way
> then the bank would have a right of action against the payee as well, but
> the cheque remains 'paid'.
>>
>>Given that if you unwittingly buy a stolen car (or anything else) and the
>>theft is later discovered, the car is taken from you and you are left
>>'high
>>and dry',, I'd be inclined to go with the money being recalled from A as
>>its
>>a parallel situation AFAICS.
>>
>
> No, 'money' isnt a physical item, it is an accounting entry. And if
> somebody nicks fifty nicker from grannie's handbag and puts the fifty
> nicker in his pocket in which, by chance, there already happened to be
> another fifty nicker and then was caught by Inspector Knackers Men and
> despite a superb defence by Messrs Sue Grabbit & Runne, is found guilty of
> robbery and made to pay the old bag the fifty nicker back, would it matter
> which of the notes he gave back?
> --
> John Boyle
Not a good analogy JB, because in your case the somebody is caught so he can
be forced to pay it back, with cheques he isnt, and the only Q is which of
the innocents lose out.
I read a story in the 'financial problem pages' of a newspaper, someone paid
electronically and put the wrong account no, but it happened to be a real
one so wasnt picked up as wrong, and thus got paid into that someone elses
account. They couldnt get the money back from the person they paid who were
unwilling to return it. At that stage it hadnt gone to court so it may have
been that a court would be able to order that.
You also say 'it then becomes a matter between the drawee and the forger'
but the forger is long gone, so is the drawee out of pocket then?
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: john boyle
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- References:
- Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: Graham Murray
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: Tumbleweed
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: Ronald Raygun
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: Tumbleweed
- Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- From: john boyle
- Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- Prev by Date: Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- Next by Date: First Direct paying in
- Previous by thread: Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- Next by thread: Re: Suppliers going bust and paying by cheque
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|