| Author |
Message |
arthur chambers (Art355)
Advanced Member
Username: Art355
Post Number: 2590
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 5:50 pm: | |
The UCC provides that there are certain procedures regarding the neogtiation of negotiable instruments. If the bank refused to honor the check after the presenter provided a reasonable identification, the presenter should sue the maker, and let the maker sue the bank.
Art |
John Do'h (Combover)
Junior Member
Username: Combover
Post Number: 89
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 4:24 pm: | |
It's proabbly my criminal justice/DA background that I have such a negative association with fingerprinting. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 470
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 4:17 pm: | |
John - agreed. I guess you could just keep doing what you did this time - voice your displeasure until you hit the highest rung. But that could end up makign your check cashing experiences dreadful. I just don't think a lawsuit will get you very far, unfortunately. |
John Do'h (Combover)
Junior Member
Username: Combover
Post Number: 88
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 4:11 pm: | |
William/Nebula: UCC does cover negotiable instruments and I was thinking of an action for "wrongful dishonor."
IMHO, criminals should get fingerprinted, not ordinary citizens. I have provided my fingerprint in the past for various things when there is a legitimate reason. Unfortunately, the only reason they want your fingerprint is to check your identity after the check is passed and found to be bad. Normal id should be sufficient if you have trained tellers. I have provided my driver's license, social security card, bar card and business card showing I work at the firm where the check was drawn, that should be sufficient. |
Nebula Class (Nebulaclass)
Member
Username: Nebulaclass
Post Number: 469
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
I don't think you can sue. As far as I know, the blueprinting is in place in order to keep liability down. The bank chooses to use this system, for many reasons (lower insurance, smaller chance of losses, etc etc). Why complain? Your prints are on file with the state anyways. It's not an invasion of privacy, either. If the bank wanted to, they could dust for prints everytime you left the branch. And you always have the choice of cashing it in your own bank without the need for fingerprinting.
The bank ain't doing it in order to make your life rough. They are doing it in order to keep business costs down. That, in the end, helps you and I.
***Disclaimer*** I am not a law student, or a lawyer. Read at your own discretion.
|
William H (Countachxx)
Advanced Member
Username: Countachxx
Post Number: 3091
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 3:44 pm: | |
The UCC covers sales of goods. I believe the bank is a service industry so it wouldnt be covered by the UCC. You'd have to check case precedent, I believe, but I'm just a year 1 Law student so I could well be wrong |
John Do'h (Combover)
Junior Member
Username: Combover
Post Number: 87
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 15, 2003 - 2:33 pm: | |
I went to cash a check the other day from my employer and the bank wanted my fingerprint. The last time this happened I researched it and found that the UCC requires only "reasonable identification", or something like that. I b!tched all the way to the district manager and they finally cashed my check without it. I've now moved and new bank is demanding it too. Does anyone familiar with the UCC know of any case law on this issue? Since it's my employer's bank I'd like to avoid suing them if possible.
Thanks. |