🚀 go-pugleaf

<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,