In my former capacity, I had cause to deal with a substantial number of banks.
I was not complaining about a particular bank I did business with. I was complaining about dozens.
I will gladly concede that 3/4ths of the time I had no trouble at all straightening out the problems my customers got into.
I would imagine that our OP’s customers have a batting average at least as good as that, even with his “non-negotiable” checks.
I’d bet that the bank you were employed by would have been one of the ones where I would not have run into 3 seconds worth of trouble in helping my clients.
As far as your feelings about my attitudes towards banking staff, you’re correct. This would be pit material if you said it about me, but I’ll concede I’m simply flat-out arrogant and self-centered. I try to work on that character flaw, but it’s hard to change overnight.
Cuncutator, we have crossed cheques in Canada (at least, our law deals with them - I’ve never seen one myself). See the federal Bills of Exchange Act, at ss. 168-175.
For those who’ve asked about why one would cross a cheque and make it non-negotiable - there’s confusion in the discussions here about “payable” and “negotiable.” “Payable” means that the cheque is valid as between the person who wrote it (the “drawer”) and the person named in it (the “payee”). “Negotiable” means that the payee can exchange the cheque for value to an innocent third party.
So what’s the diff? Basically, the ability of the maker of the cheque to stop payment, so long as it’s still with the person it’s been made out to.
Suppose I buy a used car from my buddy Albert, and pay him for it with a cheque made out to him. The next day, the police come by and tell me that the car was stolen and they re-possess it to return it to the true owner. Naturally, I rush to the phone and tell my bank to stop payment on the cheque to Albert. If Albert still has it, the bank can accept my instructions to dishonour the cheque. If Albert sues me for failure to honour the cheque, I can raise as a defence that the cheque was payment for a car, Albert failed to pass good title to the car, so he’s got no right to payment of the cheque.
But what if Albert has gone to one of those Cheque-Cashing Places™, and assigned the cheque to them for cash? At that moment, he’s negotiated the cheque, to an innocent third party, for value. Now that it’s been negotiated, if I stop payment and the Cheque-Cashing Place sues me on the cheque, I can’t raise as a defence against the Cheque-Cashing Place that Albert is in breach of our contract. Their reaction, not surprisingly, is that’s between me and Albert, but they have a piece of paper with my name on it and I have to honour it. My only remedy is to sue Albert and hope he’s not blown it all.
What it boils down to is that the payee of a negotiable cheque can give a better title to the cheque than he has himself, provided he negotiates it with an innocent third party for value.
That’s why it’s open to the drawer of a cheque to say that it’s a non-negotiable cheque. That doesn’t prevent the payee from exchanging with a third party - but it puts the third party on notice that he’s taking the cheque subject to whatever claims the drawer of the cheque may have had against the payee. Or, as Cuncutator put it:
See s. 174 of the Canadian Bills of Exchange Act for the same point.
Crossing the cheque provides some protection to the drawer of the cheque, which I assume may have some comfort for Cuncutator’s employer, who seems to be sending cheques all over the world.
Note that this is not the same as the payee writing “for deposit only” on the cheque. That protects the payee, if he loses the endorsed cheque on the way to the bank, not the drawer of the cheque.
And as usual, this is not legal advice, but simply to comment on a matter of public interest. It may not even be correct in your jursidiction, since the law can vary on these sorts of things from jurisdiciton to jurisdiction. If you need advice on an issue of this sort, consult a lawyer skilled in the law on this point in your jurisdiction.
piffle. I meant to say abby, not Cuncutator in the first reference and the last, but Cuncutator in the middle reference. This is all so confusing sometimes. :smack:
Thanks for the info guys. Looks like “not negotiable” just causes too much trouble, so we’ll leave it off the next batch of cheques we get printed.
a