You usually see the kinds of checks I’m talking about from companies trying to get you to switch your local or long-distance telephone service.
They’ll send you like a $25 or $50 check in exchange for your switching, and when you endorse the check, there is fine print that says something like “By signing, you agree to switch your long-distance service to THIS CO. for …”
Does that constitute a legal contract?
Should I start trying to slip fine print on my checks to utility companies?
“By endorsing this check, you agree to give the provider 10 years of natural gas supply at no additional cost …”
(Obviously, I know this doesn’t work. But I’m not exactly sure why. Why can the long-distance company do it but I can’t?)
In the case of phone companies, this is called “Slamming”. It seems to be legal only if you knew that by cashing the check, you understood that you were switching long distance carriers. Changing your carrier without your consent is prohibited by Section 258 of the Telecommunications Act.
The language on the check must be perfectly clear. If you cash the check but did not realize it meant changing your carrier, charges for any calls during the first 30 days are not your responsibility. Calls after the 30 day period are charged at your prior carrier’s rate. I would think that anybody who cashed one of these things, without understanding what it meant, is probably not compentent to sign contracts anyway. Although, even the best of us are duped now and again. 
Here’s a site describing “the slam” All about ABTolls
I don’t think there’s anything from preventing you from doing the same thing on your checks to the utility company, but good luck making it stick. When you accept services from a utility company, there is often a service agreement. Check the fine print. I’m sure there’s something in the legalese that would prevent this kind of scam. (Lawyers think of everything.)
Your idea about slipping fine print on your own checks is similar to something called “accord and satisfaction,” which I know a little something about. Assuming a debtor has a good faith dispute over a debt with the creditor, the debtor can tender a payment to the creditor on the condition that acceptance of the payment will satisfy the creditor’s claim against the debtor. The “satisfaction” clause must be conspicuous, however, so don’t go trying to pay off your disputed credit card debt with microprint. Also, the creditor can reinstate the original claim by returning the payment within 90 days (since many of these conditional payments are accepted by accident).
However, your chances of pulling this off against any sophisticated creditor are longer than winning the lottery. That’s because creditors can provide in advance that they are not bound by the terms of any ostensibly “conditional” payments. If you check the terms of your credit card service agreement, you will find exactly such a clause. And as evilhanz suggests, you will probably find something similar in your utility agreement.
Source: Uniform Commercial Code, section 3-311.
Just happened to be looking through some paperwork before tax time, and discovered this note in my service agreement for cable:
I found similar wording in my agreemement for natural gas.
Oh well, it was worth a shot.
Oops, that should read:
It makes a world of difference.
I worked as a mailroom clerk for a company that processed payments for defaulted student loans. One thing they made sure we were very careful about was separating checks that said ‘Paid In Full’ or ‘P.I.F.’ on them, because those had to be checked out separately to make sure that the debt was, in fact, paid in full. If one managed to slip by and go through the typical processing and was deposited, the person had a good chance of getting their debt nullified. We were told of cases where people owed $40,000 on loans and paid them off with a $100 check with PIF on it.
That only works if there’s a good faith dispute over the existence or amount of the debt, Badtz. (I could get into the contract law reasons for that, but it’s quite boring–boils down to “new consideration.”) It may be a pain in the neck for the student loan people to have to fight somebody who tries to pull a satisfaction on them, but they’d surely win because there’s hardly ever a question about the amount or existence of a student loan debt.