Text 22559, 105 rader
Skriven 2008-10-24 14:36:35 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 22478 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: To Dipshit, about your              WAS: Distortion
===========================================================
23 Oct 08 23:17, Dale Shipp wrote to Roy Witt:

 DS>>  The point of the thread, if you had been paying attention, is that
 DS>> checks in Germany are payable to bearer no matter who is in the
 DS>> payee field.

 RW>> That's not what Bob said.

 DS> Really -- read what he said again:
 DS> [quote]

[Bob, speaking on behalf of Germany]

 DS> That's also a difference. Here, checks do not "expire" after any
 DS> specific period.

[Bob, speaking on behalf of Americans]

 DS> The unusual thing for Americans is that you can make out a check for
 DS> payment to a specific person or institution, but ALL checks have the
 DS> words "oder Ueberbringer" (or bearer) printed on them,

I've never seen an check drawn on an American bank with 'oder
Ueberbringer' written or printed on them.

[Bob, obviously speaking for Germany]

 DS>  and it is not legal to strike out those words.

[Bob, still speaking for Germany, as what is said here does not apply to
the US]

 DS> So basically whoever has the check can cash it - but not for cash,
 DS> only for deposit to an account, which leaves a nice paper trail if
 DS> anything illegal is involved. [/quote]


 DS>> If the payee signs the check over to a third party then that person
 DS>> becomes the payee and the payee is still the only person who can
 DS>> cash the check in this country.

 RW>> No, the original payee is the name in the Pay To field, but he is no
 RW>> longer the payee after he signs it over to a third party. That
 RW>> person then becomes the payee, just as if his name were in the Pay
 RW>> To field.

 DS> You say "No" and then repeat what I said.

Yes, I did. But you failed to understand it.

 DS>> The term "no third party checks" is often posted in business
 DS>> establishments to state that they will not cash a check written by a
 DS>> third party, even if you are the payee.  They usually mean that they
 DS>> will only cash checks your checks that have been written to them by
 DS>> you. That is not at all what you are talking about above.

 RW>> On the contrary. Any establishment (that accepts checks) will cash a
 RW>> check that you (1st party) write to them (2nd party). Some
 RW>> establishments will also cash a check made out to a '2nd party' -
 RW>> who has signed it over to you (3rd party). The 'payee' line on the
 RW>> front of the check bears the 2nd party's name, while his signature
 RW>> (and ID information) is written on the back, with or without a note
 RW>> that they have assigned it to you (third party). Easier done than
 RW>> said.

 DS> And your point in this thread is what?

That you are wrong, as usual.

 DS>>>  It is talking about something very different and is not relevant
 DS>>> to the thread discussion.

 RW>>> Actually, it is very relevant and shows your error.

 DS> Not hardly.

Blind men cannot see their own errors, are you that blind?

 DS>> Actually, it shows that you don't know what you are talking about
 DS>> and don't have any idea what is being discussed.

 RW>> I'm sorry your blind to your own ignorance, but perhaps it'd be best
 RW>> if you'd clean your dirty mirror...then you wouldn't look like a
 RW>> fool with both feet stuck in your mouth.

 DS> What you are seeing is in your mirror.

Is a very handsome and 'right' person.

 DS>  Nothing I have said is wrong, and you are still missing the point of
 DS> the discussion.

Everything you have assumed is wrong and your error leads others to the
wrong conclusion.

 DS> Plonk.

Dipshit.

                R\%/itt



--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)