You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-16          
 
Author Message
aruba
$12.55, by any other name ... Mark Unseen   Jun 16 01:28 UTC 1994

I recently had my check rejected at the supermarket (at least, they made
me rewrite it.)  The check was for $12.55, and I wrote "12.55" in the box
after the "$" on the check.  On the next line I wrote:
   "twelve and eleven twentieths"
Now, what's wrong with that?  Might the bank reject such a check?
16 responses total.
omni
response 1 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 04:41 UTC 1994

 I can tell you right off the bat, that the written part *MUST* match
the dollar amount or it is not a legal ch. As long as the written
part, the dollar amount, the date, the account number plus bank number
appears on the check it is considered a check, and you can write it on
*ANYTHING*. Oh, yeah, you also must sign it.


kentn
response 2 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 05:26 UTC 1994

You used to be able to write a check on anything...not so sure any
more.  If they have to give it special processing, they'll likely
just reject it.  I don't blame the grocery store for rejecting that
particular check.  What would probably happen is that the bank would
pay the lower of the two amounts as they interpret them in their haste.
which is to say, the bank would pay 12.11 to the store and they'd lose
44 cents.  They don't have to take a check from you *at all* and I'm
sure they lose a fair amount to bad check artists.  It pays them to be
careful about the form of the checks they receive.  If they are at all
suspicious (don't think you match that ugly driver's license photo
or don't like the way you look away when they compare the two) they
should think twice about accepting anything other than cash.
  Stick with the 100ths format...
aruba
response 3 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 05:53 UTC 1994

I have a moral objection to unreduced fractions.  I always thought the
point of writing the amount two different ways was just that - if
you write it two different ways, it's harder to change it later.
Therefore writing it two *very* different ways ought to be even better.
popcorn
response 4 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 11:54 UTC 1994

This response has been erased.

popcorn
response 5 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 11:54 UTC 1994

This response has been erased.

aruba
response 6 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 12:16 UTC 1994

Re 5:  Well, that's a good reason to write the entries in two very
different ways.  That allows more error recovery.  If my 5s look funny,
then ".55" and "55/100" will both look funny, and might be mistake for
something else.  But "eleven twentieths" can't be mistaken for something
else without something other than a 5 being funny.
kentn
response 7 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 16:25 UTC 1994

Don't tell us your argument.  Call the bank and argue with them.
Good luck.
klg
response 8 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 16 17:15 UTC 1994

If, according to a hamburger chain, many people think a 1/4 pounder is
bigger than a 1/3 pounder (4 > 3), we'd better stick with the "standard"
way of writing checks to keep confusion, not to mention mistakes, down to
a minimum.
pegasus
response 9 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jun 23 16:55 UTC 1994

Mark,

If you have a moral objection to unreduced fractions, you'd better learn to
deal with cash! <grin> or get one of those cards that does electronic
check stuff, where you don't have to write anything.

        Pattie
keesan
response 10 of 16: Mark Unseen   Mar 20 02:18 UTC 1998

When I was traveling out west, in small towns, the stores would have blank
checks from the local bank which they let anyone use to write a check.  I told
this to somebody I was having lunch with, and a stranger nearby said he did
not believe it and as a challenge offered to write me a blank check for $40
and he would sell it to me for $20.  I said, if he could verify where he had
a bank account, and write his check on a paper bar napkin (with the funny
jokes on them), and sign to match his driver's licence, I would buy it.  He
even offered to write his checking account number on it.  I bought it from
him, went to his bank, tried to cash it, had to talk to the manager, he asked
me what the number was on the check, I said 'he wrote his phone number on
there because he would be out of town', and he cancelled and cashed the napkin
(and I presume sent the cancelled napking to the guy).  (He had tried to trick
me by putting down the wrong account number.  They didn't care what the number
was, apparently.)  There is also a classic story of someone objecting to
paying his taxes, who wrote the check out on a cow, and the party had to
accept it.  (French story, I think).  SO you need the bank name and signature.
I made $20.  ANd had the satisfaction of imagining him opening up his next
checking account statement.
rcurl
response 11 of 16: Mark Unseen   Mar 20 05:53 UTC 1998

So now you wander from luncheonette to luncheonette betting people the
bank would cash a check written on a napkin.......   8^}

keesan
response 12 of 16: Mark Unseen   Mar 20 21:24 UTC 1998

I am not sure I would try that again, 25 years later.
srw
response 13 of 16: Mark Unseen   Mar 23 02:02 UTC 1998

You definitely need a transit number for the bank now, at the very 
least.
gelinas
response 14 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 02:34 UTC 2004

As a former proof-operator, I recommend against using anything but hundredths.
Even when done by hand, there isn't time to convert fractions to decimals.
rcurl
response 15 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 06:38 UTC 2004

(I *thought* this look familiar....I guess my memory runs back at least
six years....). 

I would think the argument could be made that checks must be made out
in the basic units of the currency. Those are dollars and cents. The
$ 12.55 is not a decimal number by that logic, it is a convention for
writing the number of dollars and the number of cents. When England had
pounds, shillings, and pence, 12 pounds plus 55 pence would have been
written 12.4.7 (or more often 12/4/7). 
gelinas
response 16 of 16: Mark Unseen   Jan 27 12:07 UTC 2004

True, but not necessary: the cent is well-named. ;)

I'd not recommend writing a check for "2 dollars, 2 bits", either.
 0-16          
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss