Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief |
---|
John McHarry (jmcharry@comcast.net) Wed, 17 Aug 2005 00:11:41 GMT
|
|
I am pretty out of date on this, but, last I knew, banks were liable for processing checks that didn't bear a reasonable facsimile of the signature on file against the account. Since the golden rule, in the sense of he who has the gold, prevails, it has been held that if the signature is the same name that is on the account card, it is close enough. For that reason, I have always had my name printed differently on checks than is on the card. Whether that is of any use today, I have had the pleasure of not finding out, although I noticed a few years ago a check I hadn't signed at all went through quite nicely. Since it was for some sort of utility bill and was correct, I just winked as well.
Like PAT, I write very few paper checks these days. I moved across
It wouldn't surprise me to see paper checks go away. Even point of
Looks like a bull market for wire fraud! I had a rather large ACH |
Post Followup Article | Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply |
Go to Next message: Jim Haynes: "Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief" | |
Go to Previous message: John McHarry: "Re: How Long Can a Telephone Extension Cord Be?" | |
May be in reply to: TELECOM Digest Editor: "An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief" | |
Next in thread: Jim Haynes: "Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief" | |
TELECOM Digest: Home Page |