"Legal Amount", HJR 192, the Bank and the Fund...

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
I came across information about a financial instrument. What overlooked in its preparation was that specific currency for the amount dollars was specified. So the check was sent back with the explanation that it cold not be processed bank because the "legal amount" specified a particular currency. To my knowledge, its held in certain circles that if, on the face of a check, the amount in numbers differs from the amount in dollars then the amount in dollar prevails.

In view of HRJ192 and the like, perhaps it might prove insightful to ponder why a bank would not be able to process an instrument if the "legal amount" specifies a specific currency, even though its the same as the "amount in numbers". Just FYI.

FT: I believe the problem you speak of has an answer between the pages of Senate Document #43 "Contracts Payable in Gold", wherein it stipulates by reference to the parity Act of circa 1906, that all instruments referencing US money, are equal dollar for dollar of face value. It is really an interesting document.

Google the quoted phrase above.

Jerry

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
I came across information about a financial instrument. What overlooked in its preparation was that specific currency for the amount dollars was specified. So the check was sent back with the explanation that it cold not be processed bank because the "legal amount" specified a particular currency. To my knowledge, its held in certain circles that if, on the face of a check, the amount in numbers differs from the amount in dollars then the amount in dollar prevails.

In view of HRJ192 and the like, perhaps it might prove insightful to ponder why a bank would not be able to process an instrument if the "legal amount" specifies a specific currency, even though its the same as the "amount in numbers". Just FYI.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Indeed. I was alluding to that issue and also perhaps to the various IMF Agreements. I figured its perhaps proof that public policy against specifying the type of specie or currency of payment are still in effect.

Originally Posted by fulltitle

Without Prejudice.
Indeed. I was alluding to that issue and also perhaps to the various IMF Agreements. I figured its perhaps proof that public policy against specifying the type of specie or currency of payment are still in effect.

I have heard tell of situations where people have challenged governmental offices for specifying particular methods of payment, and that they were successful in their challenges. On the otherhand, I have seen no documented proof.

From other research, I know that when an information package is provided with a bill that is before congress, and Congress decides to pass that bill, the contents of the associated information package are construed to be a part of the bill. Thus, because Senate Document #43 was a part of that information package belonging to HJR-192, then its' content would also be a part of the bill that was passed by Congress in 1933.

Jerry