[OT] Re: Best practice for periodic key change?

[Jerome Baum]

On Sat, May 7, 2011 at 21:36, MFPA <expires2011 at ymail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday 7 May 2011 at 6:42:06 PM, in
> <mid:BANLkTi=-c_xijTNE7+qyrLv06fJ2d7zDig at mail.gmail.com>, Jerome Baum
> wrote:



> > In that case we had a different understanding. Checks
> > aren't common over here and I never saw a post-dated
> > check -- which I assumed is a check that is meant to be
> > available after a certain date -- not a check that is
> > signed incorrectly.
>
> You are entirely correct in your assumption.
>

"Meant" as in, the guy who created the check form (i.e. someone from the
bank or the gov.) intended it this way. Not "meant" as in abused to be that
way.


> > It seems here that people who write "post-dated" checks
> > the way you describe them don't quite understand what
> > that particular date means (or I misunderstood you).
> > What you describe is the signature date, and that date
> > is *supposed* to be the date when you signed it. Using
> > a different date is lying
>
> A cheque is an instruction to your bank to pay an amount of money to
> somebody if they present it for payment within six months of the date
> it was signed.


Exactly.


> In order to instruct the bank to pay within six months
> from a future date, you are simply preparing in advance an instruction
> effective from that future date. The date on the cheque is the date
> from which the signature is effective.


Didn't you just say it's permitted within six months of *signing*? More
precisely, the signature can't be "effective", only the intent can be. That
intent is testified by your signature. But it is effective immediately. All
intent is effective as soon as it is expressed. It just may not apply under
given circumstances (i.e. before the post-date). However, as the check isn't
designed to carry a post-date, that is not the case here.


> It is non-standard but was very
> common when cheques were in widespread use. There is no lying, fraud
> or deception involved.
>

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.


> > , but as you say it won't be
> > prosecuted unless there is intended fraud or actual
> > damage.
>
> It is not illegal here, or even unlawful. I have heard of it being
> banned elsewhere but never heard a credible rationale as to why the
> practice should not be allowed.
>

As I said, lying isn't illegal. Try not to misquote me next time. Something
that isn't illegal obviously isn't prosecuted, which is the part that you
quoted.

As for post-dating checks, that's reasonable, but then add a field to the
check (rather, pray the banks might one day get smart).


> > At my bank, I left clear
> > instructions
>
> Giving clear instructions to a bank is usually a waste of time. They
> generally fail to carry them out correctly, in my experience.
>

At least if I can prove the clear instructions, they are then liable.
However, I agree that from my experience banks tend to be quite incompetent.
Still, hope dies last.

-- 
Jerome Baum

tel +49-1578-8434336
email jerome at jeromebaum.com
-- 
PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A
PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110507/7ced8d0e/attachment-0001.htm>