Questions on Fraud

Questions on Fraud

"Will"	12/9/2004 3:42:25 AM
Buyer B signs an invoice to purchase an item that states terms of payment as COD Cashier's Check. Fedex delivers item, but Buyer B presents a company check on which it has typed the words "Cashier Check" on the company check. The check is not a cashier's check. Check bounces. Has Buyer B committed fraud, by attempting to falsify the nature of the payment, to fool Fedex into accepting the check as a cashier's check? In cases of fraud, what does this do to Buyer B's obligations? In addition to the amount owed by contract, what kind of damages does fraudulent behavior open up Buyer B to? -- Will Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com



"McGyver"	12/9/2004 7:50:06 AM
"Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message news:qcadnVBF18m_pyXcRVn-rw@giganews.com... Buyer B signs an invoice to purchase an item that states terms of payment as COD Cashier's Check. Fedex delivers item, but Buyer B presents a company check on which it has typed the words "Cashier Check" on the company check. The check is not a cashier's check. Check bounces. Has Buyer B committed fraud, by attempting to falsify the nature of the payment, to fool Fedex into accepting the check as a cashier's check? Yes, that's fraud. In cases of fraud, what does this do to Buyer B's obligations? The buyer is still obligated to pay for the goods, as is FedEx. In addition to the amount owed by contract, what kind of damages does fraudulent behavior open up Buyer B to? Buyer owes FedEx for fraud. That includes reimbursement of whatever FedEx had to pay to the seller, and punitive damages. Tripple the money damages, as an unreliable rule of thumb. Fraud is also a crime. Buyer also can be sued on the bounced check. McGyver



"Falky foo"	12/9/2004 9:00:37 PM
If that ain't fraud I don't know what is. Criminal liability as well. And the thing is, there's an obvious trail because he did it on his own check and at his own door. Hope that's just a hypo. -- Falky San Diego, Calif. ---------------- Disclaimer: This has been the opinion of a law student, not a lawyer. Author advises each reader to get the opinion of a legal professional. This post is not intended to be legal advice. "McGyver" <Greyprof@msn.com> wrote in message news:31rakkF3dber2U1@individual.net... "Will" <DELETE_westes@earthbroadcast.com> wrote in message news:qcadnVBF18m_pyXcRVn-rw@giganews.com... of Buyer fraud, Fedex Yes, that's fraud. The buyer is still obligated to pay for the goods, as is FedEx. Buyer owes FedEx for fraud. That includes reimbursement of whatever FedEx had to pay to the seller, and punitive damages. Tripple the money damages, as an unreliable rule of thumb. Fraud is also a crime. Buyer also can be sued on the bounced check. McGyver



"Richard"	12/9/2004 7:48:53 PM
Will wrote: Buyer B signs an invoice to purchase an item that states terms of payment as COD Cashier's Check. Fedex delivers item, but Buyer B presents a company check on which it has typed the words "Cashier Check" on the company check. The check is not a cashier's check. Check bounces. Has Buyer B committed fraud, by attempting to falsify the nature of the payment, to fool Fedex into accepting the check as a cashier's check? In cases of fraud, what does this do to Buyer B's obligations? In addition to the amount owed by contract, what kind of damages does fraudulent behavior open up Buyer B to? FedEx drivers, as well as UPS will take any check if that is how payment is to be made. They do not care if it is kosher or bogus. You do not owe FedEx a dime. But you do owe the seller the money for the goods. A "Cashiers Check" is not simply marking the words on a check. There is a difference as to how they are made out. Since the check bounced, I would say that you knowingly defrauded the seller. Hence, prepare for court as they could seek criminal actions against you. OTOH, if the bank refused to honor due to the improper marks, then that is not criminal. You still owe them the money. Send them a money order.



"Richard"	12/9/2004 7:51:12 PM
Falky foo wrote: If that ain't fraud I don't know what is. Criminal liability as well. And the thing is, there's an obvious trail because he did it on his own check and at his own door. Hope that's just a hypo. It may be that the bank would not honor the check for the improper endorsement. I don't see why though, I've had checks go through where I forgot to sign them, forgot to enter who to pay, and even the written amount.



"Falky foo"	12/10/2004 7:50:45 AM
True but when he says it "bounces" I'm assuming it's been rejected due to insufficient funds, not due to being improperly made. It may be that the bank would not honor the check for the improper endorsement. I don't see why though, I've had checks go through where I forgot to sign them, forgot to enter who to pay, and even the written amount.



nospam@isp.com	12/9/2004 8:01:07 PM
On 9 Dec 2004, "Will" wrote: Buyer B signs an invoice to purchase an item that states terms of payment as COD Cashier's Check. Fedex delivers item, but Buyer B presents a company check on which it has typed the words "Cashier Check" on the company check. The check is not a cashier's check. Check bounces. Has Buyer B committed fraud, by attempting to falsify the nature of the payment, to fool Fedex into accepting the check as a cashier's check? Yes. Depending on the answer to the "where?" question and on some other facts you imply may be present but don't actually state, BuyerB may be criminally prosectuable not just for "fraud". However (yet also not morally/ethically to excuse what you appear to posit to be BuyerB's wrongful motive), you don't make sufficiently clear how/why it could be reasonable for the FedEx representative instructed to obtain "COD Cashier's Check" payment to rely on "a company check" even if with the word's "Cashier's Check" typed thereon, and yet proof of reliance that is reasonable is a necessary element of civil fraud recovery (although, arguably partially pardoxically, such proof might not be a required element of a criminal prosecution triggered by negotiation of a forged or otherwise substantially altered check). In cases of fraud, what does this do to Buyer B's obligations? It leaves BuyerB exposed to a lawsuit for "fraud" (and, perhaps, also criminal prosecution) and also to a lawsuit to recover what BuyerB agreed to but has not paid (plus for whatever if any other remedies the sales agreement provides for the seller). If BuyerB purchased the widget in issue in the course of doing business, then, depending on the answer to the "where?" quesion, BuyerB may be suable under color of additional statutorily-created claims (e.g., "[no] deceptive business practices" remedial legislation). In addition to the amount owed by contract, what kind of damages does fraudulent behavior open up Buyer B to? The generally prevailing measure of damages for "fraud" is the sum of money needed to make the defendant whole as if the fraud had not occurred (except that whether the remedy will include reimbursement for all plaintiff's attorneys fees isn't reliably determinable without knowing more of the facts including the answer to the "where?" question). But, as noted, the scenario you posit may entail exposing BuyerB to a variety of remedies, which might include some statutorily-provided (perhaps: substantial) damage enhancement.



"Will"	12/10/2004 10:09:38 AM
<nospam@isp.com> wrote in message news:41b8ae88.17395828@news.east.earthlink.net... On 9 Dec 2004, "Will" wrote: BuyerB's wrongful motive), you don't make sufficiently clear how/why it could be reasonable for the FedEx representative instructed to obtain "COD Cashier's Check" payment to rely on "a company check" even if with the word's "Cashier's Check" typed thereon, and yet proof of reliance that is reasonable is a necessary element of civil fraud recovery (although, arguably partially pardoxically, such proof might not be a required element of a criminal prosecution triggered by negotiation of a forged or otherwise substantially altered check). In my experience, Fedex drivers really don't inspect checks carefully. I suppose if you called this driver to the stand he would probably say something like "I looked for the words cashier check and I saw them so I didn't question it further." Are you saying that there might be other elements on the check that would have misled the Fedex driver? My visual inspection of the check suggests it was an ordinary business check with no other special markings. If BuyerB purchased the widget in issue in the course of doing business, then, depending on the answer to the "where?" quesion, BuyerB may be suable under color of additional statutorily-created claims (e.g., "[no] deceptive business practices" remedial legislation). Seller is in California and Buyer is in Michigan. The generally prevailing measure of damages for "fraud" is the sum of money needed to make the defendant whole as if the fraud had not occurred (except that whether the remedy will include reimbursement for all plaintiff's attorneys fees isn't reliably determinable without knowing more of the facts including the answer to the "where?" question). But, as noted, the scenario you posit may entail exposing BuyerB to a variety of remedies, which might include some statutorily-provided (perhaps: substantial) damage enhancement. So the court's logic here would be to pay any legal fees and interest up to a maximum penalty of three times the amount owed? Or are the legal fees on top of the damages? -- Will Internet: westes at earthbroadcast.com

Report this post for offensive content