Jump to content


post dated cheques


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5119 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

can anyone help me out? my bank have cashed a post dated cheque that i wrote for the end of june, i did have the funds available in a separate account, but was not planning on transferring them until the end of month. they now claim i have to pay £88 in bank charges. can anyone advise me if they were right to pay the company who represented the cheque as i keep being told the date is for reference only??

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bank DO NOT look at dates on cheques under 10,000 pounds except under certain circumstances. THey will also claim that you should not write a postdated cheque and that the bank reserves the right to pay or return the cheque. So, i would say to read the FAQ's and claim back all the charges you have with them

I came I saw I helped. I could do no more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The date on the cheque is the date under the technical term of law the date your authority given to the Bank to pay a said amount of money comes into force , ie your authoristaion is only valid on and after that date.

 

As per any agreement/contract and .......that is what a cheque is.

The same as any agreement/contract/licence .

 

see below sparkie

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEENS BENCH DIVISION

COMMERCIAL COURT

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 5/7/2004

Before :

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COLMAN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

 

Hosni Tayeb

Claimant

- and -

(1) Hsbc Bank Plc

(2) Al Foursan International Company

Defendant

98. Those observations, when read in context, were directed to circumstances where a bank has already discharged its customers debt to a third party, but without the authority of its customer, and faces a claim from the customer for re-payment of the sum paid without authorisation. That is a fundamentally different case from one where, as here, the bank has without authority made a repayment to its customers debtor, thus leaving the customer with a claim against the bank and a claim against the debtor. In such a case it is open to the customer to elect whether to sue the bank or the debtor. If he chooses to sue the bank, the existence of an alternative claim against the debtor which has not been pursued does not give rise to any question of unjust enrichment.

Accordingly, the Claimant is entitled to judgment in debt in the sum of 944,114.23 with interest from 21st September 2000.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...