Maybe that's the reason, Sherasi. I just found it out because I used red ink when writing a check to someone, and the bank refused it because it was red ink. I've even seen on bills where it said use blue or black ink, so it must be for photocopy reasons.
Lydia, I guess it's just certain banks that have this policy. This same bank won't accept Canadian coins.
Posts: 7161 | Location: Land of Lincoln, USA | Registered: 07-04-02
That's your bank's particular policy; from a legal standpoint, a check could be valid even if written in crayon. But they probably have the right to make such determinations. However, red photocopies well; typically, light blue is the most difficult to photocopy.
For special problems, one thing that sometimes works is to speak directly to one of the bank employees (they all seem to be "vice presidents") and ask that they help you handle it. They do have that authority; they can also, for example, reduce the waiting period between the time a check is deposited to your account and the time you have access to it.
Posts: 66 | Location: Fairfax, Virginia USA | Registered: 06-03-02
Use of red ink is an excellent way to buy you a little extra time when you are running low on funds but don't want to bounce a check. A friend of mine who was always in debt told me she wrote all of her checks in red ink because it took banks longer to process them (had something to do with scanning) and she even used to manage to "accidently" scratch through or mark over the account number on the bottom of her check!
But Honi, it is legal to use any color when writing a check, as Wordsmth points out. If one bank won't accept a check in red ink then go to another bank.
Posts: 9193 | Location: Atlanta, GA, USA | Registered: 06-03-02
As Wordsmth said, checks are legal even if written in crayon, unless there is a clause in the account agreement (signature card) at your bank, which states the bank will not accept checks written in red ink. The reason they prefer you not write your checks in red is because red ink is hard or impossible to read when microfilmed. However, writing the check in red ink should not slow the processing of the check at all, so it's not going to help you with that "low on funds" thing. All checks are "micr" encoded (by hand) the day they are received. Once encoded they are all processed the same. No matter what color ink you use.
Posts: 16 | Location: Brookline Sta., MO | Registered: 11-20-03
A P Herbert's story was based on the legal fact that there was no definition of 'instrument' in the relevant English laws e.g The Bills of Exchange Act. So, by his argument,it did not matter on what the cheque or other bill of exchange was written provided that the other requirements of the law were complied with. In fact there have been instances in England where people have written cheques on bovine quadripeds and the 'cheque' has been negotiated. However these stunts have depended on the good grace, and sense of humour, of the bank concerned. From memory, they have mostly been cases where the cheque was for charity though there was certainly one where the drawer of the cheque was protesting about some absurd and misapplied imposition of a local tax. In more serious real life it was once not unusual for a diner in a restaurant to make use of any bit of paper or suitable object instead of a cheque form. A lawyer friend once, long ago, used a restaurant's napkin as a cheque to pay their bill, he not having any cheque forms. He did have a twopenny postage stamp, then required to be affixed on any cheque, so the transaction proceeded. The bank accepted this unusual 'document'. In those days banks did all processing by hand and hand-written ledgers so this activity did not upset any system much.
The fictional Haddock was used by his creator to more serious effect. Some of the Haddock cases were to highlight the absurdities of our then laws on divorce, for example, that being a subject in which Herbert was a serious and ultimately effective reformer. All have provided generations of English law students with amusement and, incidentally, a good insight into how a young lawyer should never take any law as gospel or sensible merely because it had been passed by some Parliament or because 'we have always thought or acted that way'
Some of us are still wondering what the answer is to the question of who has right of way if a rowing boat on the Thames (rule of the road 'drive on the right' ) collides with a car (rule of the road 'drive on the left') on a tideway, a road by the river, which happens to be flooded by a high tide. That was one of Haddock's conundrums but happily one which, so far as we know, has yet fallen to be decided. It could yet happen, though.