Since this is now all in one thread, I have to say that my position has been congruent with badapple40's since the inception.
It's just that, to me, it looked so obvious and fundamental that I was hopeful that the florist would see the light without the need for them both to go to court.
Comment about the stop order was a "makeweight" which, in retrospect, I perhaps should not have mentioned. "Valid dispute" is a factual matter to be determined in the forum that I hoped they would not end up in.
(When jurisdictions began imposing civil penalties for bad checks, check kiters caught on quickly. When a check was going to to be NSF or account closed, stop orders were placed because those weren't within the ambit of most original statutes. So the statutes were revised to require the payor to justify the stop order.)
It's just that, to me, it looked so obvious and fundamental that I was hopeful that the florist would see the light without the need for them both to go to court.
Comment about the stop order was a "makeweight" which, in retrospect, I perhaps should not have mentioned. "Valid dispute" is a factual matter to be determined in the forum that I hoped they would not end up in.
(When jurisdictions began imposing civil penalties for bad checks, check kiters caught on quickly. When a check was going to to be NSF or account closed, stop orders were placed because those weren't within the ambit of most original statutes. So the statutes were revised to require the payor to justify the stop order.)