Peter of England: He’s still F RE?

[Hyrion]

[PoE] ... Oooh you little liar. I can think of one bank ["]manager["] who will argue that he does not have to accept the cheques and that is Peter the Conman of England.

We must remember, these are not "cheques" they are "legal and lawful tender" - however, that doesn't alter the reality PoE won't accept them either.

[The Observer]

And as far as I can remember, a check/cheque is never considered as legal tender, but is rather simply a promise to pay legal tender to the payee from an account at the bank where the check is drawn on.

[notorial dissent]

Peter can call it whatever he wants, doesn't alter the fact that they are worthless pieces of paper and will never be anything but worthless pieces of paper. Of course if they are legal tender, then shouldn't PoE have to accept them as well. But then again, what's one more lie after all the ones he's told so far?

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Back in the real world where nobody accepts watercress or Re for jack shit, there's been another SUCCESS!!!1!!1!

From the Peter of (Germany?) FB page:

Angela Cronin: Received this letter today, one of my WeRe cheques no good for AIB bank, very disappointed

[PeanutGallery]

Back in the real world where nobody accepts watercress or Re for jack shit

Point of order. I have in the past accepted Watercress as part of an aside meal in a restaurant. I have also exchanged legal tender for Watercress once in a while. I would therefore suggest that Watercress is much more valuable, usable and consumable than Re.

[vampireLOREN]

Back in the real world where nobody accepts watercress or Re for jack shit

Point of order. I have in the past accepted Watercress as part of an aside meal in a restaurant. I have also exchanged legal tender for Watercress once in a while. I would therefore suggest that Watercress is much more valuable, usable and consumable than Re.

And do not forget Watercress is good for you too! ..... just something else is does not have in common with Re .

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Back in the real world where nobody accepts watercress or Re for jack shit

Point of order. I have in the past accepted Watercress as part of an aside meal in a restaurant. I have also exchanged legal tender for Watercress once in a while. I would therefore suggest that Watercress is much more valuable, usable and consumable than Re.

And do not forget Watercress is good for you too! ..... just something else is does not have in common with Re .

This is all true enough. I concede.

But what if my intention is to utterly destroy my own credit rating, have my accounts closed and risk jail time, all to the chorus of laughter? Watercress can't help you do that.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I would therefore suggest that Watercress is much more valuable, usable and consumable than Re.

I suppose that would depend on the situation. For instance, if I got caught short and was squatting behind a bush I would plump for the "legal and lawful tender" notes over the Watercress every time.

[noblepa]

And as far as I can remember, a check/cheque is never considered as legal tender, but is rather simply a promise to pay legal tender to the payee from an account at the bank where the check is drawn on.

In the US, at least, and I suspect in the UK, as well, a cheque is definitely NOT a "promise to pay". That is a promissory note.

A cheque is AN ORDER TO THE DEPOSITOR'S BANK to pay, from the depositor's account, a sum of money. That is why cheques say "Pay to: John Smith" or "Pay to the order of: John Smith". I, as a depositor at my bank, am ordering my bank to pay John Smith a certain sum of money, provided I have at least that much on deposit.

But, you are right about the fact that a cheque, no matter how it is spelled, is NOT legal tender. As many have pointed out, no one is legally obligated to accept a check, although, as a practical matter, business would grind to a halt if checks were not virtually universally accepted for payment in the currency of the land.

[The Observer]

But what if my intention is to utterly destroy my own credit rating, have my accounts closed and risk jail time, all to the chorus of laughter? Watercress can't help you do that.

Sure it can. Just start trying to pay all of your bills and purchases with watercress. I bet your credit rating, along with your reputation with family and friends, will fall faster than a paralyzed falcon.

[FatGambit]

Technically a cheque is a 'request to pay' since the Bank can refuse the request for any number of reasons.

[The Observer]

In the US, at least, and I suspect in the UK, as well, a cheque is definitely NOT a "promise to pay". That is a promissory note.

A cheque is AN ORDER TO THE DEPOSITOR'S BANK to pay, from the depositor's account, a sum of money. That is why cheques say "Pay to: John Smith" or "Pay to the order of: John Smith". I, as a depositor at my bank, am ordering my bank to pay John Smith a certain sum of money, provided I have at least that much on deposit.

Yes, to the bank it is an order. To the payee, you are representing that you have funds ("legal tender") that back the check you are issuing. In that regard, it is a promise that the payee will be paid. The payee has no assurance from the face of the check whether the bank will pay it. And if there are no funds behind that check, the bank does not have to pay over based on your "order" (unless an overdraft protection agreement is in place). This became an issue, at least in the US, that many state and cities ended up passing laws to allow for prosecution for bounced checks as a criminal tort under certain situations.

[mufc1959]

The WeRe Bank cheques used to say "Pay _____________________"

Now the "Lawful Legal Tender Notes" say "I promise to pay _______________ on demand the sum of _____________"

So the old cheque was an order to pay and the new note is a promissory note.

Cheque:

Note:

[Hercule Parrot]

Do we know where Purloiner of Everything is getting these bogus instruments printed? I would be surprised if a proper chequebook firm is prepared to deal with WeirdBank now.

[Hyrion]

Note:

OPCA: I promise to pay ___Hyrion___ On demand the sum of ___$150___

Me: Ok, I demand you pay me the $150 now instead of giving me that worthless piece of paper

[SteveUK]

Maybe I'm over analysing this, but doesn't the cheque's new motif look like it's done in a 'Wild West' "wanted" poster typeface?

Is this a sign of bad things to come for Petey & Co.?

[KickahaOta]

Maybe I'm overanalyzing as well, but if these WeRe notes are now supposed to be promissory notes instead of conventional cheques, why are they still crossed as if they were cheques? It's almost as if Pete weren't being completely consistent with his legal theories.

[daveBeeston]

Pigpot you,me and anyone else can personally choose to forgo money in return for our services/goods and be paid by other means or provide our services/goods for free that is our Personal choice we cannot how ever demand that others do the same nor can we demand that others accept our choice of payment for services/good even if it is legal tender.
In England and Wales the only legal tender are banknotes issued by the Bank of England and coins(coins only have to be accepted within limits and can be refused).

PoE is running a fake bank with cheque's that have zero value and are no more legal tender than a piece of paper with a monetary amount written on it(beit Dollar,Pound,Euro or other).

[Gregg]

I would put it that WeRe Bank could, in theory, be held liable for the amounts of all the WeRe checks used as payment and those who write them might, at least in a jury trial, be held harmless.

Stay with me. The suckers who get the checks from WeRe Bank gave money to get them, and were told when they did so that they would have a sum on account with WeRe Bank. So they write a check for that new BMW they've always wanted but couldn't, as part time and occasionally unemployed dishwashers afford. The BMW dealer, not being terribly bright himself, accepts the WeRe Check and our happy fast food employee motors away in bliss on his way to write "It worked for me" on the message boards.
A week later, the check is returned by the auto dealer's bank as noncollectable due to insufficient funds. But it's not clear who hasn't got sufficient funds here, the guy who bought the car with the check, or WeRe Bank, what issued the check and they didn't have the cash for a new beemer either. The guy who gave Peter X money and was told he could do exactly what he did, and that WeRe Bank would accommodate the transaction. He could say as much truthfully in court, and it is WeRe Bank that is the only one here unable to do as they have said they would. Swap out all the crooks and losers here for a real bank that goes under and a real customer who had the money in his account. Makes some kind of sense, doesn't it?


I wouldn't try it myself, but were I on a jury I might entertain the thought in a fit of whimsy....

[notorial dissent]

Scarily enough, you may have a valid point here. I hadn't thought of it from the angle you took, but yeah, I can see a good attorney making that point in court, now whether they could sell it to a jury, whole nother kettle of gefilte fish. I really do like the concept of WeReNotABank being held liable for not paying out on the customer's order, since PoE has sworn up and down they have a balance with him of however much he's peddling these days. I really do like that concept. I don't think it will ever come to pass, but fun to think about.