Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Why isn't it binding?

   

   Bill Eccles, Apr 19th, 2005 @ 12:03pm

   
   

   If the check that someone sends me for $35 can have "fine print" on the back that says something to the effect, "You're agreeing to the following if you endorse this check," then certainly putting a so-called-EULA on the back of my checks to my payees seems like it should hold.
   
   Of course, I have to do the same thing that the EULA writers do and offer the opportunity to return the check, which I think I should be able to stipulate that they do at their own cost. Heck, it's my EULA, right?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Why isn't it binding?

   

   Mike (profile), Apr 19th, 2005 @ 12:09pm

   
   

   The problem is that you've probably already agreed to the service provier's TOS, which this would conflict with...
   
   Yes, if there were no such agreement in place, it would be binding, but in this case... probably not.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   Put the fine print on FRONT of the check.

   

   Precision Blogger, Apr 19th, 2005 @ 12:38pm

   
   

   The fine print on front of the check should say that when the user agreed to the vendor's EULA, s/he made the following exceptions that the vendor is now agreeing to by cashing the check. WHY SHOULDN'T THIS BE JUST AS BINDING as the Eula?
   (Be careful to keep a copy of the check, at least pre-sig if you can't get it post-sig.)
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   Re: Why isn't it binding?

   

   Anonymous Coward, Apr 19th, 2005 @ 10:57pm

   
   

   Don’t forget that your check is not legal tender, and as such, I do not have to accept it as payment.
   
   That means that when I receive your check with an EULA scribbled on it, I am going to chuck it, wait for your accounts due date to pass, and then assign you a late fee… and when you refuse to pay THAT, I am going to contact the credit reporting companies… and your check will not have cleared, so you have no evidence to suggest that I have been paid. Don’t be an ass hole, just pay your bills according to the terms you agreed to - even if you did not bother to read them.
   
   Besides, this isn’t anything new… My dad did this with the child support checks he sent to my mom back in the 80’s… he would send one check every three months or so, and put a note on the back that said something to the effect of: by endorsing and depositing this check the payee acknowledges that all outstanding payments due have been paid in full.
   
   A real charmer my dad… really great guy… damn I have good genes. (/sarcasm)
   
   
   
   

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   This is a simple issue of contract law ....

   

   Nigel Pond, Apr 21st, 2005 @ 8:12am

   
   

   As a matter of contract law anything written on the back of the check is not a contractual term and therefore not binding. In this case the contract already exists and one party (the payor in this case) cannot unilaterally amend its terms, terms can only be amended with the agreement of the other party. The payee will argue that the proposed change of term was not brought to its attention in a sufficiently clear manner.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   Re: Re: Why isn't it binding?

   

   Carla, Apr 28th, 2006 @ 11:53am

   
   

   My ex-husband just gave me a child support check with the phrase 'signing fulfills child support agreement' above where the check should be endorsed. Will that really absolve him of owing me anything, if he cashes it?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment