Rights for stopping payment on check

[justalayman]

Uh, where exactly does it say that the seller says there is nothing wrong with the feed??? Who is making assumptions here, justalayman?

yes, I did make that assumption.




Bottom line:


per the statute, the OP has broken the law. If the DA believes there is justification to press charges, they can. The OP's remedy was to ask the courts to intervene, not go the self help route. Even if they are in the right, it still makes them look bad. It puts the OP in the position of having to prove they did not intend to defraud the seller. If they had simply sued the seller, the seller would be in the hot seat and have to defend the claims of the OP. As it is, the OP has placed themselves in the hot seat because they took action that they possibly should not have. Now they have to justify their actions.



btw; the hay was not stated to be 2 years old.

,

that he had tried to sell the hay to them and they did not want it because they knew it was not good and thought that it was two years old

and even if it was 2 years old, if it was not misrepresented and it was suitable for the purpose it was sold for, that is still not a justification to rescind the sale.

. I am assuming that smz is telling the truth.

but at best, it is the truth as they see it. That is often different than the view from the other party's perspective.

and why a horse owner that can presumably tell the difference between coastal bermuda hay and any other type of hay and the difference between good hay and bad hay would not have made, at least, a cursory inspection of the hay they were spending $350 on is beyond me.

 

[quincy]

Ah, where to start.

There was a "cursory" inspection of the hay. smz inspected the hay "when he got home and started unloading the hay." It seems reasonable to assume that smz was not home when it was delivered.

You, for instance, could not inspect the sweater that was delivered to you until you opened the box in which it was delivered, even if you were home to accept delivery.

And read once again the law you quoted. smz TRIED to return the hay. The seller refused to take it back.

Just as you would not be expected to pay for the blue sweater when you ordered the green sweater, you have not stolen the blue sweater if the retailer refuses its return.

You do NOT have to pay for something you did not order. It is the obligation of the seller to provide the buyer with the goods that were contracted for. Otherwise the seller has breached the contract.

Can the seller sue smz? Absolutely. Can he win any suit? Not based on the facts as presented here.



(damn it is good to be back arguing with you, justalayman )

 

[justalayman]

quincy;2561337]Ah, where to start.

There was a "cursory" inspection of the hay. smz inspected the hay "when he got home and started unloading the hay." It seems reasonable to assume that smz was not home when it was delivered.

Oh come on now Quincy. Do you wait until a car is delivered to inspect it? This is apparently a local thing. It would be a prudent action for the OP to walk over to the hay they were considering buying and at least taking a look at it.

You, for instance, could not inspect the sweater that was delivered to you until you opened the box in which it was delivered, even if you were home to accept delivery.

correct but apparently this was a local situation.

And read once again the law you quoted. smz TRIED to return the hay. The seller refused to take it back.

So? There is no responsibility for a seller to accept returned merchandise. I presume (yes, it is an assumption) the seller disagrees with the buyers reason for claiming to be able to rescind the sale. That is why the buyer should have said "fine, we'll let the courts decide who is right"

Just as you would not be expected to pay for the blue sweater when you ordered the green sweater, you have not stolen the blue sweater if the retailer refuses its return.

but if you go down and buy a car (locally such as this deal appears to be), you don't wait until you get it home and say "oh no, there is a problem with it" and expect to be able to return it. It is called due diligence and a failure to perform ones due diligence is not a basis to rescind a sale.

You do NOT have to pay for something you did not order. It is the obligation of the seller to provide the buyer with the goods that were contracted for. Otherwise the seller has breached the contract.

and that is the problem: we do not know what was in the contract. We have the OP claiming one thing but presumably, the seller is stating something different.

Can the seller sue smz? Absolutely. Can he win any suit? Not based on the facts as presented here.

and again, all we have is the OP's perspective. We do not have any elements of the contract. We have one upset person making claims with no supporting evidence.



(

damn it is good to be back arguing with you, justalayman )

I'll take that as a complement.

I will accept the OP may be 100% correct. They may have gotten shafted big time and yes, if they did, they would have a right to rescind the sale. As I said last post; by doing what they did, they now have to prove they had the right to stop payment.

What the OP did does fit within the statute for the crime and if the DA is having a bad day, it would be very easy for him/her to file charges. I don't know about you but $350 is not worth me having to fight a criminal charge when the other remedy is so easy. I don't like being in the hot seat when it was so easy to put the other person there.

 

[JETX]

Justalayman's entire world is full of imaginary scenarios.... and made up crap. Then when called on it, he simply just makes up more idiotic situations.... trying to justify his imaginary world.
Trying to educate this idiot is like talking with a rock. Better to save your energy for someone who lives in the real world.

 

[tranquility]

I might look to the UCC. One place might be 2-602. There are others.

 

[justalayman]

Justalayman's entire world is full of imaginary scenarios.... and made up crap. Then when called on it, he simply just makes up more idiotic situations.... trying to justify his imaginary world.
Trying to educate this idiot is like talking with a rock. Better to save your energy for someone who lives in the real world.

Grow up stephen. You were wrong and now you are pouting.

and I make things up? It was you that was making up things such as that I claimed the statute you presented was relevant. or that I said there was a "bad check". The one assumption I made was that the seller disagreed with the buyers claim. That would be a logical conclusion as that would be the only support for denying the rescission of the contract.



You were just plain wrong then and you are now.

 

[quincy]

tranquility, look also at 2-606 through 2-608.

§2-606 says that (1) acceptance of goods occurs when the buyer (a) after a reasonable opportunity to inspect the goods signifies to the seller that the goods are conforming or that he will take or retain them in spite of their non-conformity. . . .

§2-607 says (2)(a) the buyer must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of the breach or be barred from any remedy. . .

§2-608 says that (1) the buyer may revoke his acceptance of a lot or commercial unit whose non-conformity substantially impairs its value to him. . .and (2) revocation of acceptance must occur within a reasonable time after the buyer discovers or should have discovered the ground for it. . .

Although smz would be wise to send a written rejection of the hay to the hay-seller, he has notified the hay-seller of the breach within a reasonable amount of time after inspection of the hay revealed the hay was inferior and not what he had agreed to purchase.

smz should speak with an attorney at a free legal aid clinic, or perhaps see if an attorney in his area offers a free initial consultation (which could be helpful).

 

[tranquility]

Actually, I've read and been tested on much of the UCC. What position do you think I take on this disagreement?

 

[quincy]

Your position on this, tranq? Perhaps it is the same as the law's position on it?

Just a guess.