Problems with company and bounced cheque

catmiaow

CHALLISAVENUE wrote: »

So did the bank charge you for cancelling the cheque???


Kelly

Not that I know off. So what are my next steps with the chinese takeaway?

Olipro

catmiaow wrote: »

Completely untrue and your unhelpful comments are a waste of space on here :mad:

naturally my comments don't match what it was you wanted to hear, but the gist of what I was saying still stands.

to reiterate: if they so wish, they can take you to court for deliberate non-payment of a debt and if they do, they will win.

Dissatisfaction with a service or goods does not automatically entitle you to withhold payment for it.

System

As far as I'm reading this, this isn't just non-payment of a debt, it's a dispute over the quality of food supplied.

They would not necessarily win in a court case, as you would raise the poor quality of the food / illness as defence. You could also potentially raise a counterclaim if you lost wages etc due to the food.

I doubt it will even get that far. The amount involved and the fact it would almost certainly be a small claim meaning almost zero costs for either side.

You'll probably be Persona non Grata in the restaurant / take away but I gather you won't want to go back.

Olipro wrote: »

naturally my comments don't match what it was you wanted to hear, but the gist of what I was saying still stands.

to reiterate: if they so wish, they can take you to court for deliberate non-payment of a debt and if they do, they will win.

Dissatisfaction with a service or goods does not automatically entitle you to withhold payment for it.

agsnu

catmiaow wrote: »

Completely untrue and your unhelpful comments are a waste of space on here :mad:

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it untrue. Your reaction (becoming angry and spiteful when people point out you have behaved irrationally) is ridiculous.

Olipro

Heng_Leng wrote: »

As far as I'm reading this, this isn't just non-payment of a debt, it's a dispute over the quality of food supplied.

the dispute over the quality of the food is irrelevant, as far as the law goes they accepted delivery of the food and did not return it, therefore they are legally obliged to make payment for it.

If they have an issue with the quality or they believe it made them sick then they need to file a case in court against the takeaway and doing that is entirely separate from the issue of payment.

To put it another way, if someone delivers you £1000 worth of printer equipment and you want to claim that the equipment is not fit for purpose etc, then you need to either return it to them or pay them for it and take them to court, you are not entitled to maintain possession of (or in the above case, consume) goods (or services for that matter) without making payment for them.

System

Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them correct

Olipro wrote: »

the dispute over the quality of the food is irrelevant, as far as the law goes they accepted delivery of the food and did not return it, therefore they are legally obliged to make payment for it.

If they have an issue with the quality or they believe it made them sick then they need to file a case in court against the takeaway and doing that is entirely separate from the issue of payment.

To put it another way, if someone delivers you £1000 worth of printer equipment and you want to claim that the equipment is not fit for purpose etc, then you need to either return it to them or pay them for it and take them to court, you are not entitled to maintain possession of (or in the above case, consume) goods (or services for that matter) without making payment for them.

Olipro

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them correct

mmm, you appear to be attempting to shift the burden of proof (or perhaps just appeal to ridicule), it's up to you to prove that my claims are incorrect, simply telling me I'm wrong doesn't stand given that I've made perfectly coherent examples to explain my position.

Logical fallacy much?

zzzLazyDaisy

CHALLISAVENUE wrote: »

FYI the issuer of any cheque based payment may cancel the cheque at any time before it has been presented for clearance,most banks charge a fee for this
Kelly

That is correct as between the issuer and his/her bank but the contractual arrangements between OP and his bank have no bearing on the law relating to the contractual relationship between OP and the restaurant.

The OP paid with a cheque and then put a stop on it. His bank will alllow this (although usually there is a £10 charge for the service unless the cheque has been lost in the post, in which case most banks will stop a cheque for free).

However this does not alter the fact that as between OP and the restaurant the OP has acted unlawfully in bouncing the cheque and can be sued under the Bills of Exchange Act. The quality or otherwise of the food is not a defence to that action.

And before I am accused of making things up as I go along (as per the above comments to another poster) I have pursued debtors through the courts on behalf of clients on numerous occasions in respect of dishonoured (bounced) cheques.

Here is an article that explains your rights and obligations in relation to cheques (interestingly the law also applies to direct debits, which most people are not aware of)

http://www.tgcoc.co.uk/news/members-news/dishonoured-cheques-and-direct-debits.html

jonesMUFCforever

zzzLazyDaisy - yours is a first class posting - putting a lot more meat on my original post to the same effect.

CHALLISAVENUE

catmiaow wrote: »

Not that I know off. So what are my next steps with the chinese takeaway?

Did you cancel it by phone? Did they not ask for the reason of cancellation when you cancelled it?


Kelly