Maybe 10-15 people who report that to me. Maybe 1 of 3 though are complicated by state not refunding while the federal did.
Since 2009, I've used a specific nonstandard nonendorsement for checks in Canada.
Exchanged for an equal amount of credit, or Bank of Canada Notes at par value only.
Non negotiable.
Per: (first initial last name)
I've been wondering about the wording of this one. Been wondering if it should be changed.... Thoughts??
Is using the word 'credit' giving credence to their credit system, and showing me to be of 2 minds???? Thought I'd better ask that...
Is using the word 'credit' giving credence to their credit system, and showing me to be of 2 minds???? Thought I'd better ask that...
Footnote 4 here is still in my buffer so...
What you should find interesting is at the end of the Bank of Canada Act, protecting your perfect right to restricted endorsement (non-endorsement). It is natural to deal in lawful money so a special reason must be provided for the Bank of Canada to dishonor your claim and demand!
Now to your question:
I think you have a point. That verbiage is very oblique and I feel suitors (and I) have outgrown it. However it may still need application in Canada because we resort to §16 of the Fed Act and Title 12 USC §411 here.Quote:
Is using the word 'credit' giving credence to their credit system, and showing me to be of 2 minds???? Thought I'd better ask that...
What do you think of:Quote:
Exchanged for an equal amount of credit, or Non-negotiable Bank of Canada Notes at par value only.
Special deposit only, or Non-negotiable Bank of Canada Notes at par value only.
Footnote 4 makes sense as it appears that all attempts in Canadian statute secede the definition of Lawful Money of Canada to the US definition.
Footnote 8 is more interesting as it would appear that at that time Canada was already operating in bankruptcy....
I have been trying to find the version of the Bank of Canada act that says that. Was it possibly the original?? I haven't been able to find the text yet.
I think the new non endorsement is good. I'd probably split it for myself though, as almost all checks are taken in Cash.
I found this while looking... Page 172; left column.
I have attached a Canadian rendition of Notice and Demand that is based in public v. private money.Quote:
...you have never failed to inspire confidence alike in the profession and the suitor...
I think maybe my Google Cloud can upload the Bank Act anymore... let me give it a try. [Be patient, it is huge in this photograph form.] I noticed about 3/4 the way in - Removal of Gold. I can tell you without reading it that this strongly parallels America in 1933. The right to restrict endorsement is at the very end.
It's of interest that the 'saving to suitors' clause in this journal involves the combination of common law court, while that same court can grant equitable relief.... Perhaps this was the first mixing of jurisdictions of the courts in Canada??
Thank you for uploading the Bank Act. I found the image you were talking about. It was found in the document called "Bylaws, The Canadian Bankers Association". From looking in the index in the back, it appears that there's more in the Bills of Exchange Act. The page previous to the photograph you took is very interesting as well.
The Bills of Exchange Act in section 67 define restrictive endorsements, and section 68 talks about how long a bill of exchange is good for.
http://canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rs...985-c-b-4.html
Look at paragraph 60 in the following case.
http://canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/199...h0bWwjc2VjNjgB
I believe that says that a check is a bill of exchange.
You are quite welcome!
It was fun to refresh myself on my Canadian Remedy folder.