Bell Canada Confirms Throttling > Too bad you can't throttle your payments

reply to KrK

Re: Too bad you can't throttle your payments

reply to hottboiinnc
What you write on the memo is irrelevant. I could write "TK is a Democrat" in the memo, send him a check for $100 and the only thing I would have accomplished is sending him a Franklin.

If you want to play the "paid in full" game it has to be on the back, in the endorsement area, and be fully spelled out. And you'd still lose because the game is rigged against you when automated payment processing equipment handles the check.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.

reply to hottboiinnc
MYTH

reply to hottboiinnc
»consumer-law.lawyers.com/Paid-in···emo.html

reply to hottboiinnc
I am pretty sure I read about a case where someone actually won a court case doing this, but I think he complied with the restrictions below. He basically printed a short contract statement on the check and whoever he owed it to thought it was a joke, signed it and deposited it, then asked for the rest of his money. Went to court and the check writer won.

»www.snopes.com/business/bank/paidfull.asp

Section 3-311 of the Uniform Commercial Code does state that a debt can be discharged with a check designated as payment in full "if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim." However, it's up to the claimant to prove "that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim." So if you receive a check marked "paid in full" made out for less than the amount you have agreed upon, you'd best not cross out the words "paid in full" or write "disputed" on it and cash it anyway, as you risk having the entire debt discharged. However, this condition does /not/ apply to "transactions conducted or performed, in whole or in part, by electronic means or electronic records, in which the acts or records of one or both parties are not reviewed by an individual in the ordinary course [of business]," which means that this scheme will not work at all for most bill or credit card payments, as those payments are typically handled by automated systems and not humans.

reply to fAcEtIOUs

reply to nasadude
That section may apply with the UCC applies, but the UCC doesn't apply in all situations in which case you have to use ordinary common law and contract law which varies in different places.

reply to fAcEtIOUs