Someone cashed a cheque I wrote 17 months ago - don't they expire after 6 months?

Manxman_in_exile

I suppose another answer could be:  "This is not a question that a court has ever - or could ever - be asked to decide.  Any question about the validity or otherwise of cheques lies outside the jurisdiction of the courts.  It is entirely the prerogative of banks to decide if a cheque is valid or not".

If that is the answer it would be nice to see something "legal" to support it.

p3ncilsharpener

Manxman_in_exile said:

p3ncilsharpener said:

...For some reason though you decided to quote me saying cheques are valid indefinitely, and they are.  They don't have an expiry date so they will be honoured for as long as the bank is willing to honour them.

Yes - I did quote you saying (as you did in the very first reponse to this thread) that cheques are valid indefinitely.  And the reason for me quoting it was because I wanted to know what the legal basis for that assertion was.  That was why I then asked:  "Surely cheques aren't still valid and legally binding after six years, are they?"

In asking that question I am not making a statement that cheques definitely do expire after six years - rather I am asking why they would not expire after six years given that any underlying debt would be statute barred after six years.

The reason I am asking the question is not because I am accusing you of being wrong (which from the tone of your responses I suspect you do think) but because it seems to me to be an odd proposition that cheques have no expiry date - but I admit I do not know if that is the case or not.  As I don't possess that knowledge I was asking the question in the hope of getting a definite answer from somebody who knew and could share that knowledge.  And by a definite answer I was expecting a reference to something like a Court of Appeal decision or reference to some stautory provision that established that cheques have indefinite validity.  Not just an unsupported statement that they do.

So, to try a different approach:  I assume we can agree that after a cheque has been drawn there is a minimum period of time during which the drawer's bank cannot refuse to honour a cheque provided that the drawer's account holds sufficient funds.  (Can we agree that point?  I'm not entirely certain myself but I'd be very unhappy if my bank started bouncing cheques I had drawn for no reason when I had more than adequate funds in my account to cover those cheques. Can we agree it or not?)

Assuming we can agree on the preceding paragraph, can you tell me what the minimum period is after a cheque has been drawn that a bank could safely refuse to honour that cheque, without in some way being legally compelled to do so?

It seems to me that so far your answers have simply said that the length of "validity" of a cheque is decided solely at the whim of the bank, and that a cheque is valid for as long as the drawer's bank decides it is.  But this seems an equally odd proposition to me, because surely there must be some minimum period of time after a cheque has been drawn during which the bank has no choice but to honour it?  ie the cheque can be enforced.  (NB - my use of the word "surely" does not necessarily signify a position that I am certain of - its use signifies that I am uncertain and am asking for confirmation, and a legal authority).

If (and I stress "if") I am correct that there is such a minimum period, then what is it?  It seems extremely unlikely to me that that period would exceed six years, and for all I know that minimum period might be considerably less than that - I admit I don't know, but I feel it's unlikely to go beyond six years.  Hence my original question.  Can you enlighten me with an answer that provides some legal basis for what you have said?  I honestly and sincerely want to know!  I'm curious!

It might be that you disagree with all I've put above - which would be fair enough and an acceptable answer.  But only acceptable if you can also explain in words of one syllable the reason(s) why you disagree with me or why I am completely wrong.  The other answer that "It's only my opinion because there is no legal authority that decides this issue one way or another" would also be an acceptable and transparent answer.

There is no minimum time.  Aside from the customer placing a stop on the cheque, they could be refused due to lack of funds, or because the bank just doesn't want to.

There is no rule or law defining minimum validity just like there is none defining maximum validity, it is entirely up to the bank.  A bank may state in their T&C's for how long they'll honour a cheque for but many don't.

Again, there is no rule or law limiting how long a cheque will be honoured for, it is entirely up to the bank.

Manxman_in_exile

(Just found this thread again -I've spent all morning trying to locate it - didn't realise it was so long ago... )

So to go back to my original point, if a bank chose not to honour a cheque after six years, we can be clear that there is no law that could compel them to do so?  So a cheque cannot be binding after six years?

Whether a bank chooses to honour a cheque after any length of time whatsoever is neither here nor there.

robatwork

A bank can't decide if a cheque is "binding", it can just decide whether to honour it.

A court can decide if a contract is binding, and an old cheque would be excellent evidence that it is. Or was. 

Plenty of people keep/frame refund cheques from their utility companies for eg. 1p.  If anyone on this forum has an old one, perhaps they'd like to present it to test...

Manxman_in_exile

The question was whether or not a court could direct a bank to honour a cheque that was six years old or older, if the bank had already refused to do so.  It wasn't about whether a bank can voluntarily choose to honour a cheque or not, irrespective of the cheque's age.

It arose from a question I asked three pages back suggesting that cheques surely could not remain enforceable after six years.  I asked my question in response to the following statement which I did not think was wholly clear and which - without further clarification - could be understood to suggest that cheques can be banked after any period of time and were a legally binding contract and were, in effect, the same as "cash".

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

What I was getting at was simply that if A gave B a cheque in payment of a debt, but B took over six years to bank it, what could B do about it if the bank refused to honour it and A refused to replace it?  I would be of the opinion that if B took A to court over it, the court would refuse to direct that the cheque be honoured as it simply represented a debt that was by now staute barred - so B would have no remedy at all.   And in that sense the cheque from A would have expired and was most certainly not like cash.

There then appeared other posters suggesting that courts could direct banks to honour cheques no matter how old they were, and yet other posters pointing out that banks could voluntarily choose to honour cheques no matter how old they were - which wasn't what I was trying to get at.

I then forgot about this thread until I saw p3ncilsharpener's name on another thread and I remembered I'd asked him a question here.  Which is why I came back today to read his reply.  That's why it's been resurrected after almost a couple of weeks...

ThisnotThat

Manxman_in_exile said:

The question was whether or not a court could direct a bank to honour a cheque that was six years old or older, if the bank had already refused to do so.  It wasn't about whether a bank can voluntarily choose to honour a cheque or not, irrespective of the cheque's age.

It arose from a question I asked three pages back suggesting that cheques surely could not remain enforceable after six years.  I asked my question in response to the following statement which I did not think was wholly clear and which - without further clarification - could be understood to suggest that cheques can be banked after any period of time and were a legally binding contract and were, in effect, the same as "cash".

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

What I was getting at was simply that if A gave B a cheque in payment of a debt, but B took over six years to bank it, what could B do about it if the bank refused to honour it and A refused to replace it?  I would be of the opinion that if B took A to court over it, the court would refuse to direct that the cheque be honoured as it simply represented a debt that was by now staute barred - so B would have no remedy at all.   And in that sense the cheque from A would have expired and was most certainly not like cash.

There then appeared other posters suggesting that courts could direct banks to honour cheques no matter how old they were, and yet other posters pointing out that banks could voluntarily choose to honour cheques no matter how old they were - which wasn't what I was trying to get at.

I then forgot about this thread until I saw p3ncilsharpener's name on another thread and I remembered I'd asked him a question here.  Which is why I came back today to read his reply.  That's why it's been resurrected after almost a couple of weeks...

I don't believe that a cheque overrides the limitations act, and I don't believe therefore that the issuer of the cheque can be compelled to honour it.

Manxman_in_exile

And I agree with you.  You seem to be the first (and only?) person to understand what I was trying to say.

(Apologies if I've missed anybody else)

Undervalued

Manxman_in_exile said:

The question was whether or not a court could direct a bank to honour a cheque that was six years old or older, if the bank had already refused to do so.  It wasn't about whether a bank can voluntarily choose to honour a cheque or not, irrespective of the cheque's age.

It arose from a question I asked three pages back suggesting that cheques surely could not remain enforceable after six years.  I asked my question in response to the following statement which I did not think was wholly clear and which - without further clarification - could be understood to suggest that cheques can be banked after any period of time and were a legally binding contract and were, in effect, the same as "cash".

bris said:

Cheques don't actually expire, banks as a courtesy usually contact you to explain it's been presented.

A cheque is like a contract to pay that you can't get out of, It's a legally binding rock solid contract thats like cash as a promise to pay the bearer on demand.

What I was getting at was simply that if A gave B a cheque in payment of a debt, but B took over six years to bank it, what could B do about it if the bank refused to honour it and A refused to replace it?  I would be of the opinion that if B took A to court over it, the court would refuse to direct that the cheque be honoured as it simply represented a debt that was by now staute barred - so B would have no remedy at all.   And in that sense the cheque from A would have expired and was most certainly not like cash.

There then appeared other posters suggesting that courts could direct banks to honour cheques no matter how old they were, and yet other posters pointing out that banks could voluntarily choose to honour cheques no matter how old they were - which wasn't what I was trying to get at.

I then forgot about this thread until I saw p3ncilsharpener's name on another thread and I remembered I'd asked him a question here.  Which is why I came back today to read his reply.  That's why it's been resurrected after almost a couple of weeks...

A cheque surely is little (if anything) more than a letter to your bank saying "please give this chap £XX of my money". You don't actually have to write a cheque on one of the pages of the book they used to give you, in fact they have been written on all kinds of things in the past!

The bank will have its own policies about what steps it takes to try and ensure that the instruction is genuine. One of those may (or may not) be doing some additional checking if more than six months have elapsed. If the bank aren't happy with the instruction (cheque) either they or the person owed the money will have to go back to the writer of the instruction (cheque) for a new one to be issued.

The debt remains until it is satisfied by payment in one way or another although after six years there may be no legal mechanism to enforce payment.

Manxman_in_exile

Thanks.  So you would agree that after six years a payee would have no way of legally "enforcing" payment - so it is an even stronger proposition therefore that a cheque that is over six years old could not be legally "enforced" either - so a cheque is not like "cash" in that respect?

(The six months thing has already been done to death earlier in the thread and I don't think it's relevant to my question.  Ditto whether banks may or may not have a policy of voluntarily honouring cheques after any length of time)

ThisnotThat

Manxman_in_exile said:

Thanks.  So you would agree that after six years a payee would have no way of legally "enforcing" payment - so it is an even stronger proposition therefore that a cheque that is over six years old could not be legally "enforced" either - so a cheque is not like "cash" in that respect?

(The six months thing has already been done to death earlier in the thread and I don't think it's relevant to my question.  Ditto whether banks may or may not have a policy of voluntarily honouring cheques after any length of time)

A cheque is exactly like cash, it's simply a promise to pay, but the limitation act still applies.  Cash is still dependent on it being honoured so in the most extreme example of the cash was outdated and the BoE chose not to allow it to be cashed in, you'd be in exactly the same position as you would with a cheque.