Phasing out of cheques

moneypooh

Mikeyorks wrote: »

Does that mean they all quote the right reference on the payment and it is automatically picked up by your systems? In my experience the cost of ad-hoc EFT payments is far from free. The error rate because of incorrect / inadequate referencing often exceeds 15%. And the manpower resource to trace / investigate and bring to account .... often brings the cost close to that of cheque processing (where you provide a payslip).

that's not our experience, we have well trained customers!!:rotfl:

reehsetin

PBA wrote: »

Oops, meant to hit reply not thanks!!

Wouldn't the contract have to be signed by both parties to make it valid?

you dont have to sign to accept something, acting on the contract (cashing the cheque) can be enough

Mikeyorks

reehsetin wrote: »

acting on the contract (cashing the cheque) can be enough

Which is where we came in!

As previous - you can't use the encashment of a cheque to denote a contract has been made / broken. The usual things people try is to issue a cheque 'in full and final settlement' .... of a larger debt. Then argue that encashment signifies acceptance. Read the HMRC definition of how (legally) flawed that is :-

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/dmbmanual/DMBM405080.htm

PBA

Mr_Mean wrote: »

I have seldom had the misfortune to come across such blatant immaturity as both Biggles and PBA. Whilst you may not agree with the facts at least don’t make yourself look foolish with something you so clearly have no knowledge of or the maturity to understand.

Well I already made myself look foolish, and admitted it, when I hit thanks on your earlier post when I meant to hit quote. You haven't explained how a contract can exist without both parties agreeing. I had always been led to believe that was an essential part of any contract.

brightonman123

my current firm needs 2 signatures on a cheque, but BACS gets done online by just one person..

both ways are after two other people have verified the bill, just in case you were thinking of trying to sneak a fake bill under the radar!

PBA

reehsetin wrote: »

you dont have to sign to accept something, acting on the contract (cashing the cheque) can be enough

But how can you prove who banked the cheque? I could pay a cheque in to anyone's bank account, the fact that the cheque was banked doesn't prove that the account holder agreed to any terms written on the cheque, they may well have not even seen it!

reehsetin

acceptance isnt enough to form a contract
my point was just to dispute that there had to be a signature,

firstly simply paying money into an account isnt enough for anything - there has to be an offer for a start (+capacity +consideration) for any contract to be made

there is a lot of case law about incorporating terms into a contract and i seriously doubt that scribbling it on the back of a cheque would mean incorporation in anyones mind

brightonman123

where i was working, most customers paid by chq / bacs.. their new direct debit system allocates the payment to (pre selected) invoices, saving a lot of data entry.. AND gets them to pay on time!

brightonman123

PROLIANT wrote: »

....if I want to pay my friend who lives 200 miles away how can I do this without sending cash or BACS payment, what is the simplest method of payment?...

if there's a post office left near you, they still do the postal orders- have revamped the design, so they look like cheques. as far as i know, you can stil lchoose to have it 'croosed' (pay into a bank a/c only), or 'open' - receiver can then cash any post office, unless one is specified..

dzug

brightonman123 wrote: »

my current firm needs 2 signatures on a cheque, but BACS gets done online by just one person..

both ways are after two other people have verified the bill, just in case you were thinking of trying to sneak a fake bill under the radar!

May depend on your bank, but mine offers the facility to give different system users specific privileges - so it can be set up for example that person A is enabled to originate a direct debit (ie input all the details) but cannot authorise it for payment - person B has to do that.