Acceptance for Value Vs. Refusal For Cause

[mystic one]

I hear 2 different camps on this site.

One camp "espouses" the refusal for cause "strategies and theories" and the other camp promotes acceptance for value..

Depending upon various situations, when would it be better to use one strategy vs the other (ie. debt collectors, traffic tickets et cetra)???

[charlesa6]

Mystic one, welcome to the forum! Absolutely correcto! Depending on your situation, one strategy is not enough you have to use both.

[David Merrill]

Many people have come to me for help with R4C after tendering a BOE in conjunction with thier A4V. You cannot do both at the same time. The edge the Libel of Review (LoR) offers is an evidence repository for future R4C.

[mystic one]

im kind of lost what you mean by that. i guess create a scenario where you would be using both in your strategy.. ie. johnny recieves a bill, does he refusal for cause the contract. then when that doesnt work switch to acceptance for value. maybe break down the steps for me.... I know every situation is different and there is no exact formula or band aid, but if you can clarify it for me a little more that would be great.

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by mystic one

im kind of lost what you mean by that. i guess create a scenario where you would be using both in your strategy.. ie. johnny recieves a bill, does he refusal for cause the contract. then when that doesnt work switch to acceptance for value. maybe break down the steps for me.... I know every situation is different and there is no exact formula or band aid, but if you can clarify it for me a little more that would be great.

I would never advise accepting for value. Albeit I admit that many collectors will not push it. My experience is with homes where the mortgage payment/bills are accepted for value and finally a BOE is cured and tendered to the mortgage company. The trustee for the institution will write a letter rejecting the BOE.

My advice is that you cannot reject and accept a presentment at the same time.

[mystic one]

i think im getting it now.... refusal for cause is when you are stating that they did not indorse it correctly or give you a negotiable instrument to discharge it.


Acceptance for value is stating yes, i accept this under these conditions..

its basically trying to get the same outcome using two different paths.. you can "refusal for cause" the presentment or acceptance for value you the presentment... one is saying i cant accept this because of this, release the order to me.
one is saying, i can accept this but only if you discharge this under these terms. Your wanting the ultimate goal of releasing the order, but just using "there flaws"
to get what you want.. Its like a chess game. one is not better than other , its all about choice and what "system" you feel more comfortable with? kind of like some people like oranges some like apples?

[charlesa6]

Originally Posted by mystic one

i think im getting it now.... refusal for cause is when you are stating that they did not indorse it correctly or give you a negotiable instrument to discharge it.


Acceptance for value is stating yes, i accept this under these conditions..

its basically trying to get the same outcome using two different paths.. you can "refusal for cause" the presentment or acceptance for value you the presentment... one is saying i cant accept this because of this, release the order to me.
one is saying, i can accept this but only if you discharge this under these terms. Your wanting the ultimate goal of releasing the order, but just using "there flaws"
to get what you want.. Its like a chess game. one is not better than other , its all about choice and what "system" you feel more comfortable with? kind of like some people like oranges some like apples?

Yes Yes, you get it. Is like abracadabra, You decided whatever you received a presentment or contract which directions to invoke your remedy.

[powder]

I recently received a contract offer (parking ticket) and returned it a4v + returned for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

Funny thing, my wife got a contract offer within a couple of days... So I sent it to them refused for cause. without recourse. without dishonor.

Of course they were sent back within the first 3 days and registered mail to the comptroller.

[mystic one]

Ok, so let me get this straight, somebody sends you a "presentment" you can refusal for cause and cite your cause within 72 hours, right?


Or you can accep for value using a bill of exchange ?
I presume your bill of exchange is your "UCC financing statement and addedum "attached adhesive contracts"?

Either "course of action" is correct in your remedy and you just need to choose which one?

Let me know if my logic is correct?

Whether doing ACCept for value strategy or refusal for cause what are the timetables for the presentments when attempting to stay in honor?

What are the exact procedures for both strategies?

If you unfortunately make it to a courtroom in "dishonor" of the presentment, is it already too late to engage your remedy or do you still have a fighting chance if you "box the judge in with jurisdiction /statutory question to get case dismissed followed by various motions if need be? I know "preventative maintance is always best" but want to know if you can get cased dismissed if you have the unfortunate situation of being in court? I know if it goes past paper dueling and into court , you have to question the "jursidiction" immediately to have a fighting chance???

[powder]

The standing principle is that you have 72 hours to reject an offer to contract.

The 'parking tickets' are simply offers to contract, so you have 72 hours to 'do something' about it in the paper duelling. Otherwise, you have alot more work in the circus.

Refused for Cause - no you don't have to cite your cause at all. The opposing party will have to 'take other action'.

Bill of Exchange definitions

Originally Posted by about.com

Definition: A bill of exchange is from the late Middle Ages. A bill of exchange is a contract entitling an exporter to receive immediate payment in the local currency for goods that would be shipped elsewhere. Time would elapse between payment in one currency and repayment in another, so the interest rate would also be brought into the transaction.(Econterms)

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

A non-interest-bearing written order used primarily in international trade that binds one party to pay a fixed sum of money to another party at a predetermined future date.

From the above definitions... the BoE as it is commonly know is simply a version of a 'check'.

The BoE has NOTHING to do with the A4V, R4C approaches.... Some have suggested that you A4V and then tender a BoE for satisfaction... This is where you would need the UCC-FS.

the UCC Financing Statement (FS) is/was used in an effort to 'capture the strawman' so that you, the living blood, can provide credit to the corporate entity a/k/a strawman.

Prima pars aequitatis aequalitas. The radical element of justice is equality. If any company can create money from your signature, you can as well.

If you have to go to the circus make sure you buy your snacks outside. There are two types of jurisdictions. In personne and subject matter. In personne is the first challange, then SMJ. If the ring master wanted a plea, how can you plea without discovery? I am not an expert on procedure.... I believe there are other threads that get into this strategy more.

The circus depends on how much work you want to make for them and what is at stake? (do they want to put the strawman in club fed?) Approach, tactic are completely up to you. I would suggest learning from past experiences of other people. Learn what NOT to say.

From what I understand jurisdiction can be challanged at any point. Obviously much healthier to do up front