Quote Originally Posted by Robert Henry View Post
It would appear that the presumption, and hence over-complication, here is yours, Doug: "...after which the system is presumed to have the duty..."

Again, my question is; what evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have that anything happens in "the system", as you describe it, upon demand? What act does the teller in "the system" commit in performance of this duty you presume "them" to have, before handing me the FRN's due from the non-endorsed check I have provided them?

The redemption is IN the demand. Demand is made, therefore the notes are redeemed. Very simple. Unless one wishes to over-complicate the issue.
RH, see my prior post above. All I think D555 is saying is, DO NOT leave any stone unturned for 'them' to un-turn for you, valid or not. His point is technically a valid one. The DEMAND is made at the time of redemption or at the proper time 'from this point forward', not presumed to be 'already executed'. It is certainly 'splitting hairs', but ANY crack in your language or execution will surely be 'used against you in a court of law' as 'they' like to say.

I don't think D555's intent is to over-complicate things, rather just to make people be more aware of WHAT they are doing and saying in a legal/lawful sense.