[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Henry Bremridge wrote: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 11:45:56PM +0100, Rhia Knowles wrote: >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/plywood_cheque/ >> >> I saw this, thought of Gordon, but then thought we all might enjoy the smirk >> just as much. > > What is that wonderful expression "don't try this at home" Wise advice. > see > > http://www.royalmint.com/corporate/policies/legal_tender_guidelines.aspx > > cheques on fancy materials are not legal tender But nor are paper cheque so I'm not sure if that site is applicable. I'm guessing BT specify they accept payment by cheque, and I'm guessing if the plywood complies with the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, the Cheques Act 1957, and the Cheques Act 1992, it is a cheque, and so meets the agreed terms of his contract. The trouble with writing your terms and conditions in legalese is the courts will assume you know what a cheque is. If they only wanted cheques that can go through their machines they should have specified it in the T&C. My question would be are there any charges? He might think it funny to write a cheque on plywood, but if it is cashed depending on the T&C he might be liable for any extra charges the bank makes. Special presentation is 12 quid at the Halifax. So if your £4.50 protest cheque ends up costing you more than £16 it might not be so amusing. On the other hand when customers start paying with plywood cheques - possibly it is time to start paying attention to what they are trying to tell you and not to how to cash the cheque. > What I would like to do however is the next time I get asked to sign on > to a secure website to send emails is to send a reply that requires them > to sign onto my secure website I fear that if you are prepared to jump through hoops, then it is something of interest to yourself, where as their customer support might not feel the same way when replying. I feel your pain. Should it also use a web form that doesn't reliably send responses to them if there message isn't delivered successfully. I think this feature of web forms is especially useful for plausible deniability. If you still want it drop me a note, including any specific pain you want to inflict - email sign-up - mismatching security certificate - badly laid-out forms - irrelevant fields made mandatory - officious content checking against unspecified rules - rejecting non-US post codes or phone numbers - none of these should be a problem to include. Simon -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html