From: Larry Tighe (larryradio@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Mon May 23 2005 - 07:44:51 PDT
Steve,
Not to drag this out....checks have to "clear", Bank Cheque or otherwise.
And, those can be cancelled like any other....your risk is in accepting it.
Banks routinely warn you that until a check CLEARS, the monies ain't yours
to be had....and if you don't have enough money in the acct. to cover it
till it clears, you cannot draw against it.
Escrow is the only protection for both parties...anything else is at the
buyer's risk. If a bank or PayPal were to assume responsibility for a
failed/fradulent transactions, who'd care what or from whom they
purchased....and the banks (or other intermediaries) would be out of
business!
It's your risk and your loss or gain when you entered into a transaction.
Let's not fall into the ever popular trap of "who can I blame for my
misfortune (anyone but me)" mentality.
To repeat myself...ESCROW..or risk...end of story.
Lar
www.antiquetelephone.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Grammont" <islander@midmaine.com>
To: "Military Vehicles Mailing List" <mil-veh@mil-veh.org>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [MV] [FDept] frauds on eBay (cont)
> Larry,
>
>> So Steve, are you saying "Buyer Beware" is cancelled now and the bank
>> should eat the buyer's mistake?
>
> So, when a bank accepts a Bank Check as cash, deposits it into your
> account, makes the funds available, then a month later realizes that the
> check is a fake, withdraws the money out of your account after you've
> spent it... that's the buyer's mistake? Isn't it the bank's
> responsibility to make sure that check is good before giving you the
> money? Or at the very least making sure the customer is VERY aware that a
> bank check is really no better than a personal check?
>
>> The buyer is responsible for two issues: Due Diligence and Inherent
>> Risk. Ain't the bank's problem.
>
> True, but those responsibilities ALSO apply to the institutions which are
> set up to provide a service. Or when you drive a car and the engine
> explodes due to a manufacturing defect the first time you drive it the
> driver's fault because he didn't do "Due Diligence" and is assumed to be
> taking "Inherent Risk" with a product?
>
> "Inherent Risk" should apply to the bank as well... but if there is one
> thing banks DON'T like is risk. If they don't like the risk then they
> should figure out a way to mitigate it. Just like the whole "smart chip"
> issue with credit cards. Since the card companies pass the problems along
> to the innocent party, they don't have an incentive to figure out a way to
> mitigate the fraud problem itself. For example, I take credit cards,
> someone uses a stolen credit card (how am I supposed to know the
> difference? Due Diligence is impossible), I deliver the goods, a week
> later I get a notice that the funds have been deducted from my account.
> The credit card company assumes no Due Diligence nor any Risk. They nail
> me. And yet there isn't a damned thing I can do about credit card fraud
> that I am not already doing.... on the other hand there ARE things the
> credit card companies can do.
>
> steve
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Oct 28 2005 - 22:42:54 PDT