Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, surely if he wrote the cheque in your name and gave it to you then it is his problem not yours. If he didn't want you to deposit it then he should have stopped the cheque or not given it to you in the first place.

    Unless you signed a contract stating you would only accept the money under certain conditions then you have broken no laws afaik and there is no case to be had. Besides, would this person seriously pay £10k+ bringing a case to court over a £30 cheque?!

    The police would tell your ex-friend off for wasting their time. Don't worry about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dark-Audio)
    Just to add - At the same time of this cheque writing session, he wrote me a cheque for £100,000 postdated to 2080 (which I knew would be useless then - I'm guessing...) and another friend a cheque for about £130 for 2020.
    Perfectly fine to deposit a post-dated cheque before the date on the cheque. The most likely outcome is that it would go through fine (or bounce and charge the drafter). The bank may however refuse to honour it (no penalty on your part if this happens, you just get the cheque sent back to you by the bank). It may be nice however to deposit the £100,000 cheque, just to see what it looks like to have over £100k balance (if only for a brief while, and of course you cannot draw against it).

    What I have always wondered is what would happen if you wrote someone a cheque for £0.00, or for a negative or fractional amount. I imagine the bank would refuse to honour it but you never know. Also, have a look at this: http://www.goodthink.com/$$tablecontents.html [something I always thought about doing].

    Ultimately, the drafter is responsible for any money lost writing cheques (unless fraud has occurred).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by resipsaloq)
    Re contractual - there's a promise to pay for a part of a party. Provided you rebut the balfour v balfour predumption it can be argued there is a contract and indeed a subsequent total failure of consideration.

    There is also, arguably, a theft. The appropriation is of the chose in action when the cheque is presented. Its dishonest because there never was a party. The chose belongs to the ex friend and there is clearly intention to permanently deprive.
    ...
    The friend writes out the cheque 'for a joke' (no gift) and then the contract is formed for the part of the party and it's at that point there is a promise to pay.
    The Op's friend said "this can be for your new-years party". I'm reluctant to read into the words too much, but the word "can" implies an option rather than obligation.
    In addition, it looks like there was never any intention that the Op would cash the cheque, in which case I struggle to see how the Op could have promised something in exchange. I see where you are coming from, but to me this looks like a gift.

    (Original post by resipsaloq)
    I think it's quite clear that he knows he's not entitled to the money once the party didn't happen. An ordinary person would consider what he's done to be dishonest and he himself suspects it may be dishonest. The Ghosh test is satisfied.
    The dishonesty issue really comes down to whether it is actually true that "he knows he's not entitled to the money". I don't think thats actually true: he was promised money when the cheque was given to him.

    I point you towards s2(1) of the Theft Act, "A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest:
    (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it".

    Leaving aside the moral issue of whether the Op should have cashed the cheque, its arguable that the Op was (or that he thought he was) legally entitled to the money.

    In any event, this is all a bit academic. I don't think the Op's friend could prove the circumstances under which the cheque was written, and it would be up to him to show that. I certainly don't see how a prosecutor could discharge the criminal burden of proof.

    (Original post by lordash)
    Perfectly fine to deposit a post-dated cheque before the date on the cheque. The most likely outcome is that it would go through fine (or bounce and charge the drafter). The bank may however refuse to honour it
    This. It used to be common practice in the UK. Its very very common practice where I'm living in the Middle East. Here, the banking system isn't sophisticated and cheques are taken very seriously (dishonouring a cheque = jail). Its common to use post-dated cheques for all sorts of things: e.g. if you buy a car on credit, you'll usually give the seller a bunch of post-dated cheques to secure your repayments.

    The cheque won't be honoured before its date though (unless the clerk doesn't bother to check the date I suppose).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    The dishonesty issue really comes down to whether it is actually true that "he knows he's not entitled to the money". I don't think thats actually true: he was promised money when the cheque was given to him.

    I point you towards s2(1) of the Theft Act, "A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest:
    (a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it".

    Leaving aside the moral issue of whether the Op should have cashed the cheque, its arguable that the Op was (or that he thought he was) legally entitled to the money.

    In any event, this is all a bit academic. I don't think the Op's friend could prove the circumstances under which the cheque was written, and it would be up to him to show that. I certainly don't see how a prosecutor could discharge the criminal burden of proof.
    I agree this is academic.

    The moment of appropriation (of the chose in action) is when he cashes the cheque. At this point he knows the NYE party hasn't happened. Going on OP's account, although he used to believe he was entitled to the money, once the party doesn't happen he knows he isn't.

    He never thinks the money is a gift. He thinks it's part-payment towards a party.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.