Cancelling a cheq to stop payment (intentionally breech contract) is Fraud!

sharnad

arcon5 wrote: »

This article is very informative

http://www.lyonsdavidson.co.uk/news/2063/the-pitfalls-of-paying-by-cheque

Not in regards to what the op is talking about

antrobus

miduck wrote: »

That is exactly what I said - it depends on the intent of the buyer when entering into the contract.

You're not actually a solicitor are you?

Oh I don't know.

I find it's quite common for solicitors, when asked a question, to answer it by telling you what you've already told them, and charging you £250 an hour for the privilege.:)

Peter999_2

I do like Judge Judy, but was surprised to find out that when the defendants lose they don't actually pay. The money comes from the production of the show.

I did sometimes wonder why a lot of the people would be thick enough to go on the show when they were always going to lose. They are obviously not that thick, getting the other person off their backs and not having to pay a penny. They even get $250 to appear, plus expenses.

Oli.s

There are actually three or four defences to cancelling a cheque, I cant remember what they are but as others have said the legislation has already been mentioned in the thread.

Tradesmen should be taught about this legislation as part of the apprenticeships as it is little known in my experience but is very powerfull legislation if someone tries to dodge paying you by cancelling / bouncing a cheque and the pre court steps are very very simple.

Hern

JethroUK wrote: »

No it's fraud if its done with intent not to pay (as opposed to lost/stolen) - Young Solicitor? You have much to learn o' young one

Young Solicitor has nowt to learn compared to the obviously epic scale of your own ignorance.

Can you not get it into your thick patronising head that cancelling a cheque is more than likely going to be decided by a CIVIL court as an UNLAWFUL act --- NOT a fraudulent act???

Fraud is a criminal courts matter dealt with by the police. Cancelling a cheque ISN'T FRAUD but a BREACH of the civil law which holds that you cannot DISHONOUR a cheque except in extreme circumstances.

God knows why you chose to come on here in the first place parading your ignorance.

But perhaps you'll now like to further enhance our education this Boxing Day with stunning revelations about the penalties for parking the wrong way up / down hill in, er, San Francisco or what the County Sheriff's officers can do to you in Maine if you leave your car next to a fire hydrant.

It's probably all been on the execrable Judge Judy TV show -- which, given your obsession with fraud, you may now like to sue on the grounds of wilful misrepresentation, the way it pretends to have some connection with American civil and criminal Law when it's merely advertisement-funded 'entertainment' froth.

arcon5

So you don't think "dishonestly appropriating goods" is fraud?

Hern

arcon5 wrote: »

So you don't think "dishonestly appropriating goods" is fraud?

Nope. I don't think it's manslaughter or murder or driving without insurance, either. I think stopping a cheque without very good cause is an act of dishonouring a cheque, and dishonouring a cheque is contrary to the provisions of a specific section of civil law.

shaun_from_Africa

I would have thought that issuing a cheque to obtain goods or services whilst knowing that the cheque wouldn't be honoured would class as a criminal offence (Fraud by false representation), but cancelling a cheque would be a civil matter.

(Just my untrained legal opinion)

arcon5

Hern wrote: »

Nope. II think stopping a cheque without very good cause is an act of dishonouring a cheque, and dishonouring a cheque is contrary to the provisions of a specific section of civil law.

But what about issuing a cheque in the knowledge you will be able to obtain goods knowing the cheque will be cancelled or dishonored.

don't think it's manslaughter or murder or driving without insurance, either.

okay..

zzzLazyDaisy

JethroUK wrote: »

To antrobus

Fraud is defined in the dictionary, not just in law - as is "murder"

A fraudulent act is fraudulent in any language in any country

I am not a lawyer - but I KNOW what fraud means - hence I know what is fraud and what aint - its common sense that should tell you

I am not going to get into a detailed discussion of this. But I will say that you cannot use a dictionary definitions to define a point of law, and you cannot equate 'legal definitions' with 'common sense definitions'.

Legal terminology has precise meanings which are often at variance with the common usage of the term.

Just as a few very simple examples:

It is possible for an employer to behave 'unfairly' towards an employee in the way s/he treats the employee, but for that conduct not to be categorised as 'unfair' in the legal sense of the term.

An employee may complain that s/he is being bullied by a manager, and may view that bullying as 'harassment'. It might even be true that the employee is being harassed by the manager in the common use of the term, but unless the manager's conduct fits squarely within the precise and very narrow legal definition of the term, it will not amount to unlawful harassment.

Similarly for discrimination. There are lots of discriminatory actions that an employer might take, which cannot amount to 'discrimination' within the legal meaning of the term.

Even in the case of murder - the common sense meaning (intending to kill someone and succeeding) is different from the legal definition which would include, for example, intending to cause serious harm in such a way so as NOT to cause the person's death, an intention to teach the person a lesson, carried out with the specific intention NOT to kill that person. If that person dies from his/her injuries, the criminal offence is still murder.

I could go on, but there is little point. You will either accept what I am saying, or not. Probably not......