Acceptance for value

[Jerseee]

Not really. It can be construed that you were part of the fraud as well.



Remember, I said "It could be construed".



The reason is that the situation is so vague to were anyone can be at fault if one denies some part of the deal that was not made clear from the beginning.



Also, there can be guilt by association. You know that underlying sense of everyone knew but no one wants to get caught.

Originally Posted by research1

In banking, acceptance means to Honor or to take responsibility to Pay. For Value is the value the claim being presented by the presentor to the drawee i.e. the STRAWMAN account holder. The secured party or flesh and blood man can do four things upon presentment:



ACCEPT-HONOR-PAY



CONDITIONALLY ACCEPT



What does Conditionally Accept mean? Is that based on some contingency, otherwise thier original offer stands?



REFUSE FOR CAUSE-REJECT-(become a "Defendant")



Refuse for Cause, is that where you start arguing?



IGNORE THE PRESENTMENT



Then you go into default right, and that's a no no.



From a philosophical/theoretical perspective acceptance is our purest remedy. The application of acceptance for value is a complicated matter for it is predicated on bookkeeping in part.



In my opinion Winston does a great job giving an introduction to the concept of acceptance.



How do I get ahold of Winston's material?



Acceptance for Value can take a while to properly digest. However, once you have it as a concept, you got it.



R1

-lithmus

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

research1



There is one way to refuse for cause without dishonoring the presentment and therefore remaining in honor. That is under UCC 3-501(3) "Without dishonoring the instrument, the party to whom presentment is made may (i) return the instrument for lack of a necessary indorsement,



Any idea what would constitute a necessary indorsement?



or (ii) refuse payment or acceptance for failure of the presentment to comply with the terms of the instrument, an agreement of the parties, or other applicable law or rule."



The best is always to remain in honor. A presentment is dishonored whenever you argure (go to war fight) or ignore it (silence). Silence is acceptance by acquiesence. Remaning in honor removes any controversy.



Yes Implication is how your get defaults.



iamfreeru2

-lithmus

Originally Posted by research1

It appears that you are speaking about both Conditional Acceptance and Full Acceptance.



Both are strategies and one must know when and how to implement such.



Conditional Acceptance in short can be explained in part by the following example:



Thank you for your offer/demand/money order in the amount of $400.00 re account #1234567.



I hereby conditionally accept your offer/demand/money order upon production of the following documents i.e. "evidence" which demonstrates or proves the following:



Sure that conditional Acceptance is saying that I will discharge or accept this if you can prove your claim is valid, am I right?



There exists and underlying contract between claimant and the Undersigned which gives claimant a right of payment.



Please validate your claim pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C. "The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act".



Until then, it is my pleasure to be...





Research 1

-lithmus

Originally Posted by seizeliberty

I found where I saw this reference:



RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF CONTRACTS

11

§59. PURPORTED ACCEPTANCE WHICH ADDS QUALIFICATIONS

A reply to an offer which purports (that means intends) to accept it but is conditional on the offeror's assent to

terms additional to or different from those offered is not an acceptance but is a counter-offer.



Yeah because if it was conditional, it would have to be explicit about it. The be a conditional acceptance it would have to be intentional. The same is true with an acceptance.



Comments:

a. Qualified acceptance. A qualified or conditional acceptance proposes an exchange different

from that proposed by the original offeror. Such a proposal is a counter-offer and ordinarily

terminates the power of acceptance of the original offeree.



See §39....But a definite and seasonable

expression of acceptance is operative despite the statement of additional or different terms if the

acceptance is not made to depend on assent to the additional or different terms. See §61; Uniform

Commercial Code §2-207(1). The additional or different terms are then to be construed as proposals

for modification of the contract. See Uniform Commercial Code §2-207(2). Such proposals may

sometimes be accepted by the silence of the original offeror. See §69.

b. Statement of conditions implied in offer. To accept, the offeree must assent unconditionally

to the offer as made, but the fact that the offeree makes a conditional promise is not sufficient to

show that his acceptance is conditional. The offer itself may either expressly or by implication

propose that the offeree make a conditional promise as his part of the exchange. By assenting to such

a proposal the offeree makes a conditional promise, but his acceptance is unconditional. The offeror's

promise may also be conditional on the same or a different fact or event.

Illustration

<font color=red>3. A makes a written offer to B to sell him Blackacre. By usage the offer is understood as

promising a marketable title. B replies, "I accept your offer if you can convey me a marketable title."

There is a contract[/color]

-lithmus

Originally Posted by seizeliberty

I agree, the Restatement should not be quoted as Law but I think it is a great tool for understanding contracting and how all this really works.



I think the point of all this (the example taken from the Restatement) was to illustrate what the acceptance letter accomplishes. That being: setting "them" up to fail in a big way.



First, you are unconditionally accepting the offer thereby completing the contract, removing controversy and controlling the contract.



Second, you are requesting they do some accounting, i.e. adjust the account.



Third, you are requesting they prove they have authority to make the offer and to prove they have a claim of title. This is implied but they can't come up with the proof.



Yeah, and if they can't then they are trying to do a Fradulent act right?



Not only do they not accept your acceptance, they don't adjust the account and they don't prove their authority/claim.



They dishonor/default, we win!



No?

I think so



-lithmus

[4Integrity]

seizeliberty,



When we A4V we change the terms of the original contract/presentment and give a Credit Value for said once the sender defaults.



Just the same way like when someone sends you a bill and you ignore it, then 3 days later it becomes a real, true, bill in commerce (Credit Money). Then they can collect, take you to court, or sell the debt.



Soooo, In your case, Now you have a commercial contract with a value that you could amend to your UCC Contract Account. When you A4V the initial presentment you add 1M to it so it is above the bond of the presenter.



Are you there yet? (UCC Contract Account)



4Integrity

You know, I've seen references to the UCC Contract Account on this site and I haven't focused on it. I'm not sure what it is unless it's something I know about under a different name.

[Ice]

A4V is hogwash... a fraud... designed to make money... another process to sell "freedom".



Buy it if you want to...



But don't come looking to me when the crap hits the fan.

[iamfreeru2]

Ice,



Why don't you let people do there own investigation to see if something is a fraud or not. Just because Ice says so does not make it so. Are you here to help people or stirr the pot. I am beginning to wonder.



iamfreeru2