On Fri, 22 Jun 2007 21:00:18 +0100 'John Boyle'
posted this onto rec.travel.air:
>In message <5e2mnsF36cf9hU2@mid.individual.net>, hummingbird
> writes
>>
>>>>Ok that's fine. So IIUC you're saying that the Ts&Cs of my bank
>>>>are actually not supported in law per se.
>>>
>>>I dont understand what you mean.
>>
>>You said earlier: "Bills of Exchange Act 1882 s78 makes it clear that
>>a cheque is payable 'on demand'. Therefore, when the cheque is
>>presented for payment it must be paid or returned unpaid that day."
>>
>>That presumably is the law which banks have to comply with.
>>
>>>A bank can set any T&Cs it wants, you dont have to bank there.
>>
>>Indeed. All I'm saying is that the bank's Ts&Cs are not supported
>>by the law you quoted above. So even though the bank say they can
>>unpay a cheque at any time in the future, that is actually not true,
>>because once a cheque has been paid - that's it.
>>
>>Or are you saying something subtlety different?
>
>No, I agree that the T&Cs are misleading, they should be clearer.
Thanks, I've decided to write to my bank to clarify.
I appreciate your comments John.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Well you may be right but the framing of such clauses tells me that
>>>>>>the banks are attempting to disown responsibility for the cheque
>>>>>>clearing and payment system.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thats your own interpretation.
>>>>
>>>>Well I appreciate your comments on this John. It's enlightened me
>>>>considerably. I wonder if I should write to my bank and ask them to
>>>>clarify that clause in their Ts&Cs and point out that at face value it
>>>>appears to be wrong in law? hhmmm.
>>>
>>>Yes, I would. I agree they are misleading.
>>
>>Thanks. |
