I frequent a small-town convenience store just about every day. From time to time, checks that have been returned for insufficient funds will be prominently displayed on the cash register. No personal information has been blacked out. I can see the person’s name and bank account information. Is this a legal business practice? Ethical? (I know that could be just an IMHO answer)
In these days of identity theft, it seems that the owner of the store could be asking for trouble although someone that frequently writes bad checks might not have much of an identity to steal.
IANAL so don’t know about legal. Ethical maybe not, but doesn’t bother me. If you don’t want your check there, make it good. The only victim is the business owner.
I always figured those names are aliases anyway, and there’s such a small chance the account is still open, there’s no information to infringe privacy or to steal.
I don’t know about in all cases but since this is such a small town, I’ve recognized many of the names as authentic. I don’t know the likelihood that the accounts are still open.
I would assume the merchant first attempts to contact the bad-check-writer and collect the money, and, if successful, will take down the check.
If it were me writing the bad check (let’s assume it’s because of some bookkeeping error or somesuch on my part or the bank’s part), I would presumably be prompt to pay. But I would insist on the bad check being returned to me.
Not a good idea, Invasion of Privacy comes to mind.
IF it was shown as a “direct/proximate causation” someone comitted ID theft, as you say, do to the posting of it, the business can be in tortious trouble.
It’s pretty easy to steal a checkbook and start writing with abandon…makes one wonder how many of those checks have been written by someone other than the account-holder. And how that person is being ‘shamed’ unfairly.
You seem to fancy yourself a law buff, so here’s a commercial paper question for you:
How does one have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a negotiable instrument; that is, an instrument whose very nature is to pass between any number of parties—with no expectation by the drawer of the instrument that he can control to whom it is subsequently negotiated. Indeed, such a restriction would negate the document’s status as a negotiable instrument, since by UCC § 3-104(a)(3), the instrument may “not state any other undertaking or instruction by the person promising or ordering payment to do any act in addition to the payment of money . . . .”
And a bonus torts question: can one proximately cause another’s intentionally criminal act? Is that not rather a textbook case of a superseding cause?
So if a bank bounced YOUR check, by thier error, you would be okay with it if they published a photo of it on thier web site and put in up at your bank at the front door?Would you consider that a Breach of Confidentiality?
You say you are a lawyer, I bet if that was done to you, you could not make it to the clerks office fast enough to file a suit.
But if they bounced it in error and published information that was false, that would be slander unless they cleaned up their error tout suite.
I remember a business in a small town that did this, posted cheques for sale- basically the writer or a friend could buy it back - get it taken down - by paying face value plus bounce charge.
Generally, it seemed most of these people were the same ones who took the same lacksadaisical attitude to much of life - late or irregular job attendance, could not keep track of their bank balance, always late on the rent (or bounced it too). They always live half a paycheque behind, and only seeing themselves shamed would convince them to leave this merchant out of their shennanigans.
Would I consider it a breach of confidentiality? No. I would instead consider it wrongful dishonor under UCC 4-402(b).
Commercial paper is really not an area of law well-suited to autodidacts sussing what they might expect the law be according to his understanding of concepts that don’t really apply. (For instance, merchants do not enter into confidential relationships with their customers merely by accepting their checks, however much customers might prefer that they be so bound. It is rare that one can unilaterally impose fiduciary or other duties on an unwilling counterparty.)
IANAL but I doubt it because it’s not collection. The store owner isn’t demanding payment, or contacting the debtor, he’s shaming him in public by producing truthful information.
And now for another episode of fun facts from the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. If you are given a bad check here and can locate the person who gave you the check, the state police will accompany you to collect that debt. I don’t know what they do to make people pay up, but apparently it’s very effective.
Isn’t the reason for posting the checks so that the cashier will know who not to take checks from? If the store is using a check guarantee system (such as Telecheck), they are not covered if they take a bad check from someone who has already bounced a check there in the past.