🚀 go-pugleaf

In chi.general max <betatron@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article 
><B%Lmk.150383$102.120236@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "SpammersDie" <xx@xx.xx> wrote:

>> <spamtrap1888@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:dc64fddb-49b4-4796-914a-045b75378e1a@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Aug 7, 12:43 pm, "SpammersDie" <x...@xx.xx> wrote:
>> >> <spamtrap1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >> news:c1f774e3-94de-4c23-9924-32b208533d23@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> > On Aug 5, 8:00 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> I find that hard to believe the way you keep playing the victim card
>> >> >> on behalf of these incompetent money managers.
>> >>
>> >> > There is a fine banking tradition of refusing to honor withdrawals
>> >> > after a sufficient lapse of time -- "stale-dated" checks. All my
>> >> > dividend checks have a date on them beyond which they will no longer
>> >> > be honored. After that, the payee must go groveling back to the maker
>> >> > to get a replacement check. If a giant corporation is not required to
>> >> > keep sufficient funds in its checking account for eternity, neither
>> >> > should Joe Consumer be.
>> >>
>> >> > Banks should have treated these withdrawals as if they were stale-
>> >> > dated checks.
>> >>
>> >> Where did it say in the article that the banks honored aged EFTs?
>> >>
>> >> It sounds more like the vendor spit out the merchandise and waited months 
>> >> to
>> >> initiate the EFT.
>> >
>> > The vendor does not initiate the EFT, the customer does when he sticks
>> > his debit card in the vendor's machine.
>> 
>> [Sigh.]
>> 
>> The vendor is the one that contacts the bank. Until the vendor does that, 
>> the banks have no way of knowing a transaction has occurred.
>> 
>> So why are you claiming it's the banks' job to reject the EFT when there's 
>> no evidence in the article that the banks could have known the ETF was for a 
>> transaction that occurred month's earlier,

>good point.  It is  computationally infeasable to embed a BEGIN 
>timestamp in the transaction headers.  This is largely due to the 
>quantum uncertainty of time arising from relativistic effects at 
>different latitudes.  We certainly know that PIN-enabled transaction 
>points don't provide this information in the user reciept.

Well, he does have a good point though, were the transactions properly 
dated or did they carry the date they were debited?

UCC says;
"4-404.  BANK NOT OBLIGED TO PAY CHECK MORE THAN SIX MONTHS OLD.

A bank is under no obligation to a customer having a checking account to pay 
a check, other than a certified check, which is presented more than six months 
after its date, but it may charge its customer's account for a payment made 
thereafter in good faith."

So, it's open for a bank to reject but the bank doesn't have to reject it...

-- 
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
       http://www.chicagopaddling.org   http://www.chicagofishing.org
 (A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)