Alterations on cheques
Chris R
from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on the
(personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the Ombudsman,
but he wants to go to court.
1 Is there any law on the formalities required for alterations on cheques
or bills of exchange? Clearly in order to succeed in court, he needs to
prove that the bank was wrong to bounce the cheque - he must lose if it was
in their discretion.
2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In this
case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage to
reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some question.
Chris R
Peter Crosland
news:kMidnd4jYdLOGn_W...@brightview.co.uk...
The court does not look favourably on cases where the claimant has not
exhausted the complaints procedure available to him so he really should go
to the ombudsman first. In any case the bank have probably acted reasonably
by refusing the cheque because of the incorrect alteration. He would also
have to prove that he had actually suffered a quantifiable loss as the
result of the bank's actions. Based on what you have said he does not sound
to have a very good case.
Peter Crosland
Chris R
reasonable" - my pet hate in this group! As I said, there is provable
financial loss, though foreseeability could be an issue. There is certainly
no principle requiring anyone to go through the ombudsman before taking
legal proceedings.
Chris R
Peter Crosland
Irrespective of your views on reasonableness it is often the case that the
law expects people or organisations to act in a reasonable manner, or to
have reasonable grounds for behaving in a certain way. If they don't act
reasonably then they may be liable to penalties. There are countless
examples of the word being used in legislation. In the case of a cheque a
bank is liable to their customer if the wrongly pay a cheque just as they
are if the refuse payment wrongly. The customer also has an obligation to
the bank to draw cheques in a way that minimises the risk of forgery. So in
the case in point the bank was quite correct in rejecting the cheque as they
believe that there was an irregularity with it.
There is such a principle which is that going to court should be the very
last resort. As I said the Court does not look favourably on claimants that
rush to court rather than use the well established means available to
resolve matters first. The Court might well tell the claimant to go away and
use the Ombudsman procedure first.
Peter Crosland
Partac
so 'seems reasonable' does play a very large part in civil law. If this is a
pet hate on newsgroups, why bother to frequent them? In any case, judging by
your last sentence you don't appear to be willing to take any advice as you
already know all the answers!
steve robinson
As long as the bank acted reasonably then your freind has no claim ,
the cheque had been visably altered , the alteration was only
intitialed not signed , i am assuming it was the pounds not pence
that had the error or possibly the payee. The bank has a duty to its
shareholders and customers to prevent fraud
Sensible thing to do , write out a new cheque
Ian Jackson
Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> As I said the Court does not look favourably on claimants that
>rush to court rather than use the well established means available to
>resolve matters first.
What does "does not look favourably" mean ?
> The Court might well tell the claimant to go away and
>use the Ombudsman procedure first.
This seems vanishingly unlikely. On what basis (a rule in the CPR
perhaps or some statute?) would a Court be entitled to do that ?
At worst, it seems to me, they might feel that an adverse costs order
would be appropriate but costs on the small claims track are strictly
limited in the absence of "unreasonable" behaviour - and I can't see
how declining to use the Ombudsman could be seen as "unreasoanble".
The Ombudsman is regarded by experts such as Ross Anderson as
(paraphrasing) incompetent and biased:
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2008/01/23/financial-ombudsman-losing-it/
http://www.fipr.org/080116huntreview.pdf including the excellent
quote from their formal submission to the Hunt review that
[The Ombusdman's] decisions were an affront to reason and to justice.
Indeed Ross Anderson himself took his own phantom debit case directly
to the Court and won:
http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/03/29/how-to-get-money-back-from-a-bank/
Once again we see that the consumer's best option, when being given
the run-around, is to try to issue proceedings as quickly as is
possible and consistent with avoiding an adverse costs order.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>1 Is there any law on the formalities required for alterations on cheques
>or bills of exchange? Clearly in order to succeed in court, he needs to
>prove that the bank was wrong to bounce the cheque - he must lose if it was
>in their discretion.
I very much doubt it. I think your friend's case is hopeless.
>2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In this
>case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage to
>reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some question.
Your friend should check their contract. It will no doubt make
provision for the bank declining to honour what it thinks of as
fraudulent cheques. That ought to convince your friend to give up
this claim; it's a complete waste of time.
The Todal
"Partac" <petem...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:84fng7...@mid.individual.net...
No, I think the OP was right to point out that when he seeks legal advice it
doesn't help to offer subjective opinions about what is reasonable, without
quoting authority for those views. There wasn't any justification for
accusing the OP of being unreasonably stubborn, and the post wouldn't have
passed manual moderation.
The obligation under the CPR is to state ones case and give the opposing
side the opportunity to state their case, and for both sides to disclose the
documents on which they rely. The court would not expect a litigant to go to
the Ombudsman.
If a bank wrongly dishonours a cheque it can be held liable in damages. If
the customer was a trader one would expect a phone call from the bank asking
for confirmation that the cheque should be paid, if there seems anything
suspicious about it (eg initials that could easily have been forged) and one
wonders why that did not happen.
I'd be inclined to press the bank for full disclosure of its written
procedures relating to (a) whether initials or a full signature should
appear on an altered cheque and (b) what steps should normally be taken to
contact the drawer (signatory) to verify doubtful cheques before rejecting
them. If the bank fails to supply the documents, apply to the court for pre
action disclosure and seek the costs of that application.
I'd be apprehensive that if I sued the bank, the likely damages might not
exceed the costs. A court might find it difficult to believe that the
recipient of the cheque was so upset when it was dishonoured that he pulled
out of a lucrative contract. But if the evidence is convincing, maybe it
would be worth a try.
bart.c
news:9eOdnUAAt_qbO3_W...@brightview.co.uk...
>>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:kMidnd4jYdLOGn_W...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss
>>>> arising from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an
>>>> aleration on the (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not
>>>> put a full signature against the alteration. The bank say he should
>>>> have signed it.
> In the case of a cheque a
> bank is liable to their customer if the wrongly pay a cheque just as they
> are if the refuse payment wrongly. The customer also has an obligation to
> the bank to draw cheques in a way that minimises the risk of forgery. So
> in
> the case in point the bank was quite correct in rejecting the cheque as
> they
> believe that there was an irregularity with it.
Odd that if it is common knowledge that an initialled cheque alteration is
insufficient, that at least 3 people did not question this (the OP's friend,
the payee, and the payee's bank) before it got as far as being bounced.
Shouldn't the payee's bank have picked this up and refused the cheque?
(Assuming it went through a cashier.)
--
Bartc
Ste
> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss arising
> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on the
> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
> exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the Ombudsman,
> but he wants to go to court.
>
> 1 Is there any law on the formalities required for alterations on cheques
> or bills of exchange? Clearly in order to succeed in court, he needs to
> prove that the bank was wrong to bounce the cheque - he must lose if it was
> in their discretion.
The cheque must be "regular on its face", and that is a question of
fact in each case. I assume banks cannot "wrongfully dishonour"
cheques.
> 2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In this
> case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage to
> reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some question.
Is your friend the payer of the cheque or the payee? If he is the
payee, then he probably has a claim against the payer for at least
some recompense. However, the payer may or may not have a claim
against the bank - the terms and conditions of the bank may determine
the form that the cheque must take, or may limit liability.
The Todal
news:84ft4f...@mid.individual.net...
>
> If a bank wrongly dishonours a cheque it can be held liable in damages. If
> the customer was a trader one would expect a phone call from the bank
> asking
> for confirmation that the cheque should be paid, if there seems anything
> suspicious about it (eg initials that could easily have been forged) and
> one
> wonders why that did not happen.
Looking at the original post again, it refers to a "personal" cheque, so I
take it that it wasn't a business cheque. That weakens the case. A case
called Rae v Yorkshire Bank says: "An individual who was not a trader was
only entitled to nominal damages in respect of the bank's wrongful dishonour
of his cheques without proof of special damage". I expect the OP would say
that his friend is able to prove special damage. A court might take some
persuading.
David WE Roberts
"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kMidnd4jYdLOGn_W...@brightview.co.uk...
> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on the
> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
> exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the
> Ombudsman,
> but he wants to go to court.
Interesting in that when I first started using cheques (before all these
fancy electronic things came along) I was told that a correction to a cheque
should be initialled.
I suppose this ties in quite well with the standard procedure when filling
in complex forms, where you are asked to sign once and initial various parts
of the form to confirm that you have read and accepted a particular
condition (I am now thinking specifically about car hire forms although it
also applies to other forms).
So presumably this all hangs on the Ts and Cs for the particular bank
account, unless there is specific case law to establish a precedent?
I have always initialled changes on a personal cheque and never had one
refused.
However I don't use cheques much these days so I may be out of date.
Cheers
Dave R
GB
>
> Odd that if it is common knowledge that an initialled cheque
> alteration is insufficient, that at least 3 people did not question
> this (the OP's friend, the payee, and the payee's bank) before it got
> as far as being bounced.
The really odd thing is that Natwest say it's okay just to initial the
alterations.
http://www.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/g4/common-questions.ashx
"Always write cheques in ink, draw lines through any remaining spaces and
initial any alterations to make it more difficult to fraudulently alter your
cheque."
Now, if anyone had asked me beforehand what I thought, I'd have said that
initialling is definitely not enough and it needs a full signature. :-)
I suggest that the OP does a search for the name of his bank + cheque
alteration/how to write a cheque/ etc. It would be extremely helpful (either
way) to see what the bank's published guidelines are. If they require
signatures for all alterations, I wouldn't rate his chances, and vice versa.
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
tim....
"bart.c" <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:wDyEn.41646$6A5....@newsfe21.ams2...
> "Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:9eOdnUAAt_qbO3_W...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>>>> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:kMidnd4jYdLOGn_W...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss
>>>>> arising from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an
>>>>> aleration on the (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not
>>>>> put a full signature against the alteration. The bank say he should
>>>>> have signed it.
>
>> In the case of a cheque a
>> bank is liable to their customer if the wrongly pay a cheque just as they
>> are if the refuse payment wrongly. The customer also has an obligation to
>> the bank to draw cheques in a way that minimises the risk of forgery. So
>> in
>> the case in point the bank was quite correct in rejecting the cheque as
>> they
>> believe that there was an irregularity with it.
>
> Odd that if it is common knowledge that an initialled cheque alteration is
> insufficient,
It's not common knowledge. Most people (even bank tellers) will tell you
just to initial changes.
tim
Graeme
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> insufficient,
>
>It's not common knowledge. Most people (even bank tellers) will tell you
>just to initial changes.
I must admit that I have been initialing, not signing, changes to my
personal cheques for forty years, without problem. Similarly, as a sub
postmaster, I have accepted countless cheques that have amendments
initialed, not signed. Typical examples include the payee, often from a
utility to Post Office Limited, and, most frequently, the amount being
changed, in both words and figures, when the motor vehicle licence rates
change in April.
--
Graeme
GB
>> Odd that if it is common knowledge that an initialled cheque
>> alteration is insufficient,
>
> It's not common knowledge. Most people (even bank tellers) will tell
> you just to initial changes.
See my other post - Natwest say it is sufficient. That rather improves the
OP's case, don't you agree?
Ste
> On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:10:12 +0100, "Chris R" <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss arising
> > from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on the
> > (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
> > against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it.
>
> stamp, or proxy. A practical question is whether this friend ever provided
> his bank with a specimen of the initials that he wanted them to accept and
> whether the bank had accepted those instructions. Otherwise, how could the
> bank know who had initialed that alteration?
You think the bank actually *checks* the signature against a specimen?
steve robinson
I wouldnt be wingeing at the bank i would be greatfull that they are
actually paying attention
My banks bounced cheques of mine in the past because of signature
variations ( i write with both hands) although inconvienient its
easily soughted and generally they will write to the payee and
apologise for the confusion if asked to do so .
Peter Crosland
news:4be2fcc2$0$2530$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Not at all. It is entirely up to the bank to decide what they consider
appropriate in a given case. In particular the amount of the cheque might be
significant in what they did i.e. if it was few pounds they might be happy
with the initialling of an alteration, but if it for a large sum they would
be more circumspect. Because of the huge volume of cheques cleared each day
banks don't physically check every signature manually and the choice of
which ones to check is likely to be based on the face value.
Peter Crosland
tim....
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0gttoj...@news.virginmedia.com...
I'm inclined to agree, but the question here is "are initials sufficient"?
If they are then the bank should have "bounced" the cheque for this reason,
and if they aren't, lower ranks shouldn't be telling people that they are!
tim
Ben Harris
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>bart.c wrote:
>>
>> Odd that if it is common knowledge that an initialled cheque
>> alteration is insufficient, that at least 3 people did not question
>> this (the OP's friend, the payee, and the payee's bank) before it got
>> as far as being bounced.
>
>The really odd thing is that Natwest say it's okay just to initial the
>alterations.
>http://www.natwest.com/personal/current-accounts/g4/common-questions.ashx
>"Always write cheques in ink, draw lines through any remaining spaces and
>initial any alterations to make it more difficult to fraudulently alter your
>cheque."
On the other hand, my bank, the Co-op, put a note in the back of my
chequebook saying "If you alter your cheque, sign again close to the
change." Before 2001, they were more explicit and said "Confirm any
alterations with your *full* signature".
--
Ben Harris
Ken
<not-fo...@ahjg.co.uk> writes
>On Thu, 06 May 2010 10:10:12 +0100, "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss arising
>> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on the
>> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
>> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it.
>
>stamp, or proxy. A practical question is whether this friend ever provided
>his bank with a specimen of the initials that he wanted them to accept and
>whether the bank had accepted those instructions. Otherwise, how could the
>bank know who had initialed that alteration?
>
>
That part is quite simple. If you sign a cheque "ARGold" and on the same
cheque, you sign as if you were about to sign "ARGold" in the usual way,
but on this occasion stop at "ARG", I would have thought a simple
comparison would make it clear.
--
Ken
Humbug
I once had a complaint that my signature was not spelled the same as
the printed name on my cheque.
I have now modified my signature so that no individual letters are
readable.
--
H
steve robinson
> You think the bank actually checks the signature against a specimen?
Yes when the value of the cheque reaches a preset value
Chris R
>>>> alteration is insufficient,
>>>
>>> It's not common knowledge. Most people (even bank tellers) will
>>> tell you just to initial changes.
>>
>> See my other post - Natwest say it is sufficient. That rather
>> improves the OP's case, don't you agree?
>
>
> Not at all. It is entirely up to the bank to decide what they consider
> appropriate in a given case.
Interesting. Is there authority for that?
> In particular the amount of the cheque
> might be significant in what they did i.e. if it was few pounds they
> might be happy with the initialling of an alteration, but if it for a
> large sum they would be more circumspect.
That would follow if they have a discretion.
Chris R
Nightjar <"cpb"@
>
> "Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:kMidnd4jYdLOGn_W...@brightview.co.uk...
>> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss
>> arising
>> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on
>> the
>> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
>> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
>> exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the
>> Ombudsman,
>> but he wants to go to court.
> <snip>
>
> Interesting in that when I first started using cheques (before all these
> fancy electronic things came along) I was told that a correction to a
> cheque should be initialled.
I was told that they had to be signed. It may have varied from bank to
bank or, in those long past days when you got your cancelled cheques
returned to you, possibly even from branch to branch.
Colin Bignell
GB
>
> On the other hand, my bank, the Co-op, put a note in the back of my
> chequebook saying "If you alter your cheque, sign again close to the
> change." Before 2001, they were more explicit and said "Confirm any
> alterations with your *full* signature".
Just consulted my BOS and Natwest cheque books, and they both say to initial
alterations. It's clear that there isn't a common approach amongst banks on
this.
GB
> That would follow if they have a discretion.
Have you checked inside your cheque book? It may include instructions for
how to complete/alter cheques - all mine have helpful suggestions, like
writing in ink etc. I would have thought that might help resolve your issue
one way or another.
GB
>>>
>>> It's not common knowledge. Most people (even bank tellers) will
>>> tell you just to initial changes.
>>
>> See my other post - Natwest say it is sufficient. That rather
>> improves the OP's case, don't you agree?
>
>
> Not at all. It is entirely up to the bank to decide what they consider
> appropriate in a given case.
Sorry Peter, but that doesn't make sense, I'm afraid. The bank surely does
not say that they'll decide at their own discretion whether to carry out
instructions. Even if they did, it would fall foul of the UTICCR.
So the first question is whether the bank was right to refuse the
instructions because there was an initialled alteration. The judicial
process is:
1. Consult any specific laws/cases on this subject
2. Review any specific instructions given by the bank
3. Review what the general customs are in this area.
Assuming items 1 and 2 draw a blank, then the Natwest document is extremely
relevant.
The other question is whether the bank can be liable for failing to carry
out instructions, and I am sure there is plenty of established law on that.
> In particular the amount of the cheque
> might be significant in what they did i.e. if it was few pounds they
> might be happy with the initialling of an alteration, but if it for a
> large sum they would be more circumspect. Because of the huge volume
> of cheques cleared each day banks don't physically check every
> signature manually and the choice of which ones to check is likely to
> be based on the face value.
Undoubtedly true, but surely totally irrelevant?
> Peter Crosland
Chris R
ER 119 distinguishes Rae v Yorkshire Bank and allows general damages to
non-traders.
Chris R
Chris R
news:10385334-3e17-4209...@p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On 6 May, 10:10, "Chris R" <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
>> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss
>> arising
>> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on
>> the
>> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
>> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
>> exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the
>> Ombudsman,
>> but he wants to go to court.
>>
>> 1 Is there any law on the formalities required for alterations on
>> cheques
>> or bills of exchange? Clearly in order to succeed in court, he needs to
>> prove that the bank was wrong to bounce the cheque - he must lose if it
>> was
>> in their discretion.
>
> The cheque must be "regular on its face", and that is a question of
> fact in each case. I assume banks cannot "wrongfully dishonour"
> cheques.
>
"regular on its face" come from? Is there some authority for it? If so it's
probably the answer to the question.
>
>> 2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In
>> this
>> case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage to
>> reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some
>> question.
>
> Is your friend the payer of the cheque or the payee? If he is the
> payee, then he probably has a claim against the payer for at least
> some recompense. However, the payer may or may not have a claim
> against the bank - the terms and conditions of the bank may determine
> the form that the cheque must take, or may limit liability.
He's the drawer of the cheque. The Bank's general conditions are not
specific on the point.
Chris R
Ste
> "Ste" <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:10385334-3e17-4209...@p2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On 6 May, 10:10, "Chris R" <inva...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >> A friend wants to bring a claim against his bank for financial loss
> >> arising
> >> from the bouncing of a cheque by the bank. He had made an aleration on
> >> the
> >> (personal) cheque and initialled it, but did not put a full signature
> >> against the alteration. The bank say he should have signed it. He has
> >> exhausted the bank's complaints procedure. I know he could go the
> >> Ombudsman,
> >> but he wants to go to court.
>
> >> 1 Is there any law on the formalities required for alterations on
> >> cheques
> >> or bills of exchange? Clearly in order to succeed in court, he needs to
> >> prove that the bank was wrong to bounce the cheque - he must lose if it
> >> was
> >> in their discretion.
>
> > The cheque must be "regular on its face", and that is a question of
> > fact in each case. I assume banks cannot "wrongfully dishonour"
> > cheques.
>
> Sorry to have taken so long in coming back, but where does that phrase
> "regular on its face" come from? Is there some authority for it? If so it's
> probably the answer to the question.
Yes, "regularity" is the accepted test, and it is basically a test of
whether the cheque takes a normal form and the payment instructions
are sufficiently clear.
> >> 2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In
> >> this
> >> case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage to
> >> reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some
> >> question.
>
> > Is your friend the payer of the cheque or the payee? If he is the
> > payee, then he probably has a claim against the payer for at least
> > some recompense. However, the payer may or may not have a claim
> > against the bank - the terms and conditions of the bank may determine
> > the form that the cheque must take, or may limit liability.
>
> He's the drawer of the cheque. The Bank's general conditions are not
> specific on the point.
I would think that if the bank's conditions are not clear on how the
cheque should be filled in, then you have a case for wrongful
dishonour. Chitty is not very clear on what damages you'd be entitled
to. It seems to suggest you're entitled only to a rate of interest on
the unpaid sum (which I assume is not satisfactory), but don't hold me
to that.
Chris R
lot of references to the "holder in due course" of a bill, but nothing about
the bank's obligation to pay a cheque.
>
>> >> 2 Is a bank liable for damages for wrongfully bouncing a cheque? In
>> >> this
>> >> case there is provable fnancial loss - we are not talking about damage
>> >> to
>> >> reputation. Whether the loss was to the bank must be open to some
>> >> question.
>>
>> > Is your friend the payer of the cheque or the payee? If he is the
>> > payee, then he probably has a claim against the payer for at least
>> > some recompense. However, the payer may or may not have a claim
>> > against the bank - the terms and conditions of the bank may determine
>> > the form that the cheque must take, or may limit liability.
>>
>> He's the drawer of the cheque. The Bank's general conditions are not
>> specific on the point.
>
> I would think that if the bank's conditions are not clear on how the
> cheque should be filled in, then you have a case for wrongful
> dishonour. Chitty is not very clear on what damages you'd be entitled
> to. It seems to suggest you're entitled only to a rate of interest on
> the unpaid sum (which I assume is not satisfactory), but don't hold me
> to that.
Authority on that point has been referred to elsewhere in this thread - the
bank can be liable for damages for loss of creditworthiness and/or loss of
transaction.
Chris R