🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <stdn94h0i7gcbtdtpt3oqor0uk2105lgo8@4ax.com>, 
scottenaztlan@yahoo.com says...
> In message
> <c1f774e3-94de-4c23-9924-32b208533d23@j1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
> spamtrap1888@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 
> I agree. But try to find one consumer check with an expiration date
> printed on it. I've certainly never seen one.

There need not be a "best if used by" date on a check for it to turn 
stale.  Of course there is no guarantee that it will be treated as 
stale, even if it is.

> >Banks should have treated these withdrawals as if they were stale-
> >dated checks. The question is how long a delay is reasonable. Six
> >months or even ninety days without presenting is sufficient to make a
> >paper check stale. This span of time was set back when checks could
> >spend days or even a couple of weeks going from bank to bank.  As has
> >been pointed out on this thread, the customer's expectation is that
> >any withdrawal will be instantaneous. Therefore, any EFT not completed
> >within, say,  three working days should be voided, with the recipient
> >having to ask the maker to repeat the transaction.
> 
> The problem is the banking system favors merchants, not consumers. For
> example, even before Check-21 was active, banks allowed merchants to
> convert paper checks into EFT debits, eliminating the "float." The
> merchant can then destroy your check. In other words, the banks ASSUME
> that every EFT debit coming in from a merchant is correct, and they
> don't even have to produce the original check as proof. A software
> glitch (or outright fraud) could cause an EFT debit to your account,
> and unless you complain it will be treated as valid. 

Wrong.  They must produce at least a facsimile of the check upon 
request (challenge).
 
> The entire system is biased in favor of merchants, so you'll never see
> any rule that favors consumers.

No, it's biased in favor of the banks.  

-- 
Keith