On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 22:38, MFPA <[email protected]> wrote: > On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 8:50:45 PM, in > <mid:[email protected]>, Jerome Baum > wrote: > > > > We weren't talking about fraud and deception. Only > > about lying -- rather, telling an untruth, which you > > may or may not be doing intentionally. But it is still > > an untruth if the form implies that the date is the > > dated the signature was placed -- rather than an > > instruction to make the amount available after that > > date. > > Lying *is* deception. And your words "unless there is intended fraud" > appeared to me to be a reference to fraud. >
So, you are now talking about appearances and intentions? Also, since when is this a list where we discuss writing style? Didn't you say "Jerome Baum wrote" above? I think you get my point. > As for the meaning of the date, whether it is supposed to mean the > date the signature was written or the date the instruction to pay > becomes effective or simply the date the cheque is issued to the payee > is unclear to me - and probably varies around the world. UK banks have > told me all three versions at various times. The one I heard > originally (and most often over the years) is the effective date of > the instruction to pay. YMMV. > I would trust the fine print over any of these versions. That's what I meant with banks being incompetent. I might read through my fine print later to find out. If I do, I'll post here. -- Jerome Baum tel +49-1578-8434336 email [email protected] -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
