PeoplesRecorder.com

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

In other words, even if the debtor had offered payment with, say, a perfectly good check which the creditor, for some reason either good or bad, refused to accept, the debtor has to continue to be able to make a valid tender of payment if the creditor comes back later and demands payment.

This statement is horse****.

A check is a negotiable instrument

UCC 3-603 TENDER of Payment

....(b) If tender of payment of an obligation to pay an instrument is made to a person entitled to enforce the instrument and the tender is refused, there is discharge, to the extent of the amount of the tender, of the obligation of an indorser or accommodation party having a right of recourse with respect to the obligation to which the tender relates.

My mother always told me "never attribute to malice what can be explained with stupidity"

I don't take you as stupid, so where does that leave us?

[Shoonra]

Coming so soon after someone's hissy fit over comprehension, this is a tempting target.

UCC 3-603(b) reference to a discharge "of an indorser or accommodation party" is not a discharge of the debtor himself. "An indorser or accommodation party" refers to such people as co-signers who promised to be back-up if the debtor didn't pay. If the debtor makes a valid tender of payment which is refused, those co-signers are thereafter off the hook, but the debtor himself still has to stand ready to make payment when the creditor is willing to accept payment.

Additionally, if the purported tender of payment was valid -- which means, among other things, that it was for the full amount then due and it was either cash or some bona fide instrument (such as a check) that would be readily converted to cash without any snags - then the meter stops running on accumulating interest and lateness penalties as if the refusal of the tender. But the tender has to have been valid -- merely proferring something unacceptable like homebrew funny money or attempts to prolong the debt (such as a promissory note) won't do the trick.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Coming so soon after someone's hissy fit over comprehension, this is a tempting target.

UCC 3-603(b) reference to a discharge "of an indorser or accommodation party" is not a discharge of the debtor himself. "An indorser or accommodation party" refers to such people as co-signers who promised to be back-up if the debtor didn't pay. If the debtor makes a valid tender of payment which is refused, those co-signers are thereafter off the hook, but the debtor himself still has to stand ready to make payment when the creditor is willing to accept payment.

Additionally, if the purported tender of payment was valid -- which means, among other things, that it was for the full amount then due and it was either cash or some bona fide instrument (such as a check) that would be readily converted to cash without any snags - then the meter stops running on accumulating interest and lateness penalties as if the refusal of the tender. But the tender has to have been valid -- merely proferring something unacceptable like homebrew funny money or attempts to prolong the debt (such as a promissory note) won't do the trick.

First of all there is the option to protest. That option isn't legit (there are some exceptions) unless the instrument is dishonored for non-payment. i.e. insufficient funds

Answer me this. Who is the "indorser"? Who is the "accommodation party"?

Either one of these definitions apply the one that signs the check. Most likely that is the debtor. Why would someone that is not the debtor be the indorser or accommodate of a check tendered for payment of a debt?

"Indorser" means a person who makes an indorsement.

("accommodation party") signs the instrument for the purpose of incurring liability on the instrument without being a direct beneficiary of the value given for the instrument.

c) A person signing an instrument is presumed to be an accommodation party

§ 3-503. NOTICE OF DISHONOR.

(a) The obligation of an indorser stated in Section 3-415(a) and the obligation of a drawer stated in Section 3-414(d) may not be enforced unless (i) the indorser or drawer is given notice of dishonor of the instrument complying with this section or (ii) notice of dishonor is excused under Section 3-504(b).

This is all pretty cut and dry stuff.

Refusal of payment discharges the debt, period. If they don't want the debt discharged they must give notice of dishonor and that dishonor must be for a legitimate cause.

Read UCC 3 again and again till you get it.

[Shoonra]

UCC 3-419 defines and describes an "accommodation party".

UCC 3-204 does the same for "indorser".

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by Livefire

David Merrill has already pledged a case of soap on a rope and a sternly worded LoR and counterclaim in admiralty on your behalf.

David Merrill, aka DiM, aka The Poster Child for Insanity, no doubt keeps soap on a rope handy so his relatives and friends can bring him some the next time he goes to jail over one of his schemes.

[ezrhythm]

Why is this attacker allowed to continue to post?

[indio007]

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

Why is this attacker allowed to continue to post?

comic relief?