BLANK CHECK case... who is at fault?

[donnyx]

Ok, here's the story... I'll use first names only... I hope you can follow.

Eric wrote Don a blank check, he signed his name but left the "to" field and "ammount" field blank. Don lost his wallet along with the check and the check was picked up by an unknown. The unknown then used the check to purchase stereo equipment from Mike. Mike cashed the check, Eric got the bill... The money is gone from Eric's account, the stereo equip was paid for and taken by the "unknown"... Mike has his money... Eric wants his money back...

Who is at fault? Don (for losing the check)? Eric (for signing/authorizing the check)? Or Mike (for cashing the check)?

This is a case that is going to small claims court... anyone know wha the outcome would be? I would figure that Eric would be the one at fault for signing a blank check? Stupid move.

 

[LegalBeagle]

Ok, here's the story... I'll use first names only... I hope you can follow.

Eric wrote Don a blank check, he signed his name but left the "to" field and "ammount" field blank. Don lost his wallet along with the check and the check was picked up by an unknown. The unknown then used the check to purchase stereo equipment from Mike. Mike cashed the check, Eric got the bill... The money is gone from Eric's account, the stereo equip was paid for and taken by the "unknown"... Mike has his money... Eric wants his money back...

Who is at fault? Don (for losing the check)? Eric (for signing/authorizing the check)? Or Mike (for cashing the check)?

This is a case that is going to small claims court... anyone know wha the outcome would be? I would figure that Eric would be the one at fault for signing a blank check? Stupid move.

Mike is happy since he made a sale.
Don is happy because he has a new stereo.
Eric will be committed for extensive mental problems
and me? ahh, now that is another story for the next episode.

 

[donnyx]

I don't think you read it right. Don lost his money + the blank check. The guy who found Don's wallet used the money/check to buy stereo equipment from Mike. It was Eric's check/money that was used to buy the stereo gear. But Eric is taking Mike to small claims court, but is it Mike's fault? Will eric get the judgement? Or will he lose because he willingly signed a blank check?

 

[wtd]

I think that Col. Mustard did it the conservatory with a lead pipe.

I think that the names used were the actual names of those involved. If they were made up names, you would also have been able to make one up for character #4 - "unknown".
I think that you rearranged the actual names when referring to the people, though, just to confuse us.

To answer your question regarding the potential outcome of the small claims action, you may wish to try replacing every occurence of 'check' in your post with the term '$100.00 bill'.

wtd

 

[qadaq]

This is a wild guess from an uninformed party. I suspect the court will say in effect that everybody keeps what they have and Don is out whatever the amount of the check is. It's possible Don will have to pay Eric the difference between the intended amount of the check what it was eventually written for. In other words, Don, I suspect you're out of luck.

 

[RandyL712]

I disagree - whoever wrote that check (and passed it off as his own currency) is not only liable for the money he STOLE, but criminally liable as well. In fact, I know someone who went to jail for 10 days for doing a similar act.

You need to find out exactly who wrote our your check and sue him. It's theft, and ANY judge will give you your money back providing you can prove this guy actually wrote the check and received goods based on your money.

 

[wildthing]

Altho I'm not a lawyer and I'm sure there is more to this story that what we all read. I can see where Mike (if he has a retail business) may be held responsible for taking a check from someone other that the owner of a checking account. Most businesses require you to show a drivers licence when writing a check. Part of the reason for this is so someone doesn't go around writing checks from someone elses account, and if they do the DL information from that person will be recorded on the check so they can be prosecuted. It's very poss. that a friend of Mike's found the wallet and gave Mike some business and that is why Mike didn't ask for identifacation.
Or this could be a scam that Eric and Don came up with to get some free stereo equipment from Mike.
Chances are the judge will tell Eric that he was stupid for giving Don a blank signed check and that if anyone owes him it is Don for being so careless.
I wonder if Eric will sue don if he looses against Mike? I wonder if Mike will counter sue? I wonder if we will ever find out who "unknown" is?

Tune in next week to find out the answers to these and many other question on AS THE TURN TABLE TURNS

 

[qadaq]

RandyL712: Actually I'm not sure we disagree. I assumed there was no way of finding "unknown". If he can be found, you're quite right.

Wildthing: I didn't think of that. (obviously) You could be right.