Creditwrench teaches about check endorsements.
I teach that restrictive endorsements are for the most part of little value, force or effect. I often see people trying to advocate the use of Accord & Satisfaction which is an entirely different thing indeed.
In their ludicrous statements they try to assure a newbie who knows of Creditwrench and is obviously at least a lurker here that the Westcap contractual agreement which I advocate using when paying a collector is somehow nothing more than a restrictive endorsement and of course, nothing could be further from the truth.
The concept of restrictive endorsement was at one time and maybe still is the teaching of one John Gliha of whom I have spoken before. Others have also espoused the ludicrous theory that all one had to do was to send a check to the collector or creditor for maybe $10 or $20 and write "Paid in Full" on the back no matter how much one might owe and if they are not watchful and cash the check the debt is then lawfully paid in full. OK, enough of the mirth and head shaking. (LOL)
Of course, restrictive endorsement allows no such thing, and in fact most states have protections in their statutes against such foolish ideas. Restrictive endorsement is mainly for use when settling a debt for less than full face value of the debt and many states have laws which either conditionally authorize such endorsements under strict rules. California is indeed one of those states which closely regulate restrictive endorsements and the terms and conditions thereof but all those states which allow or make provision for restrictive endorsement settlements are all specifically targeted to address those situations where it is agreed that a debt is to be settled for less than full value and of course if one is paying in full then there is little need for restrictive endorsements. Or there should be little need for them.
Accord & Satisfaction is an entirely different animal and like many legal doctrines can be likened to a 3 legged table. If any of the legs are missing the table falls over. So what are the 3 legs of A & S???
The first is that there must be a logical and factual and valid disagreement between the parties about the quality, condition or usefullness of the product or service in question and what the value of that defect is.
The second is the accord which means that the parties having agreed to settle the matter for a lesser amunt for whatever reason and that an agreement between them does exist.
The satisfaction element is, of course the actual satisfaction of the accord via a negotiable instrument of some sort such as cash money, money order or some form of check. A short but concise definition of A & S is to be found at this website
Sometimes the A & S is also known as a "Novation" and is discussed at this website
That is obviously far different than a restrictive endorsement.
So now we come to the third issue which is payment of the debt in full to the last penny using a contractual agreement between the parties that upon cashing of the negotiable instrument tendered by the debtor the endorser agrees to perform some act. The check bearing the contractual agreement must be accompanied by a cover letter alerting the other party to the fact that the negotiable instrument tendered is payment in full to the last penny and an exact copy of the contractual agreement on the obverse side of the negotiable instrument. There can be no attempt to hide anything from the collector or the creditor.
Yet the goofballs on the other forum have erroneously led several people to believe that the contractual agreement and the restrictive endorsement are one and the same.
Be that as it may, I believe that there is a good possibility that some lively and interesting discussion might ensue over the differences in these types of endorsements.
Have any of you had any experiences with these differing types of endorsements and how would your agency handle each of them if you were to receive them.
The goofballs refer their followers to this website which correctly (I believe) discusses the issue of restrictive endorsements and in the process claim that the contractual endorsement which I teach one should use is one and the same as the restictive endorsement.
If nothing else, the discussion should tend to show those interested parties that they must be very careful when perusing the various message boards lest they be led astray by those who seem to know what they are talking about but are in fact badly misinformed and lead others into false beliefs and making bad judgment calls based on what they have been led to believe is good information.
So then, the question becomes one of how can the "newbie" know for himself what is good information and what is misleading junk theories.
There is, of course only one way and that is to believe nobody and go do his own research, ask the opinions of professionals trained to know and understand the issues at hand.
In most cases, a little diligent research using the various search engines will reveal the truth of the matter in a relatively short time and if they don't then go ask a trained professional.
Never accept the answers from any one source no matter how reliable one might believe them to be.
There is no need to divulge the identities of the other forum or the screen names of the goofballs who are posting the erroneous information. They know who they are and that should be sufficient.
posted by Creditwrench at 11:01 AM
