Timeline for Never-cashed cheques
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2018 at 6:50 | comment | added | TripeHound | @Ghanima The "benefits" of a cheque were that they were essentially the only way of transferring money to someone else, short of handing over notes and coins. Of course, that was in the ancient past (i.e. pre- roughly 2000 or so). Nowadays, providing you have access to internet/mobile banking, they have few benefits. | |
| May 2, 2018 at 18:28 | comment | added | Ghanima | @TripeHound, tbh I never really understood the "benefits" of cheques (I only see the additional effort there). If you did your part, i.e. handing over the cheque, I would really expect to be "off the hook" (unless the cheque bounces of course, or there is something that is really your fault). So again, I don't see what one gains by using cheques... but that's a question in its own right (and one that has been asked and answered here very likely). | |
| May 2, 2018 at 8:51 | comment | added | TripeHound | @Ghanima It probably varies by country, but in most cases, I suspect that, legally-speaking, giving a cheque will not be the same as handing over currency – it will not in itself discharge the debt (that would probably only happen once the cheque has cleared). If a cheque were presented in a timely fashion, and failed to clear, you would still be liable for the debt. If the recipient doesn't process it in a timely fashion, and it then isn't honoured because it's too late, is probably more variable (but I'd guess the debt still exists in most places). | |
| Jul 3, 2015 at 2:21 | comment | added | keshlam | @ghanima: correct, but the honorable thing to do -- since they deserve the money and it costs little or nothing -- is to replace the elapsed check with a new one. | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 23:17 | comment | added | Ghanima | Actually I do not understand. Giving someone a check (w/ receipt) is as good as giving them greenback (w/ receipt). Not cashing the check seems to me the same like losing the hard money. How could the one giving the check be responsible? | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 22:47 | vote | accept | user30029 | ||
| Jul 2, 2015 at 22:47 | comment | added | user30029 | Thank you, this is helpful! I will accept this as the answer for now, but anyone else with more details can be free to leave another answer. | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 17:31 | comment | added | keshlam | Usual practice is to have them mail you the old check so you can void it s=and replace it with the new check. If they can't find it, you can tell your bank not to honor the old check; there is usually a fee for that service. | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 16:37 | comment | added | JohnFx♦ | The trouble is that it is in the bank's discretion to honor the check. Many won't, but I'd hate to risk being overdrawn because one decided to. | |
| Jul 2, 2015 at 2:33 | history | edited | keshlam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| Jul 2, 2015 at 2:23 | history | answered | keshlam | CC BY-SA 3.0 |