A NEW IDEA, WHAT DO YOU THINK

[bluealex915]

Ok, I currently owe sprint 400.00 dollars for an old cell phone bill which is about 8 months old. Today when I checked the mail an idea occured to me but I want to make sure it is legal.

As I was opening my mail I noticed a letter from household bank credit card. The letter was an advertisment and it included a check in it for two dollars and fifty cents, made out in my name.

The letter said that if I cash the check I am agreeing to the offer for some type of book club and that I would be billed at a later time.

Now I started to think, if a creditor can send you a check like this and state that if you cash it you are agreeing to a contract/debt. Why can't a consumer do the same to a debt collecter.

If I were to send sprint a cashiers check for 250.00 dollars with a letter stating if they cash the check they are accepting to settle the debt for that amount rather then the 400.00 that I owe them. I would send the letter certified of course and keep all the documentation including a printout from my bank showing that the check was cashed.

Would this be legal and would it stand up in court if a CA were to cash the check and then try to collect the rest of the 400.00 dollars. If anyone has an opinion or thought on this matter please let me know.

Thanks........

[DocDon]

That's been a topic here many times before. State laws vary on whether it's binding, or they can cross the wording out and cash the check, etc.

Maybe somebody can help me locate that thread.

[bluealex915]

My state is Utah and I don't know much about the law in this kind of matter. Do you think it is worth a try to send the check and a letter. I will give it a shot as long as it wouldn't violate any kind of law. If it works I will post the results for others to learn from.

Thanks.......................

[SQLguy]

This may help a bit. It's from the Utah Commercial Code

70A-3-311. Accord and satisfaction by use of instrument.

(1) If a person against whom a claim is asserted proves that that person in good faith tendered an instrument to the claimant as full satisfaction of the claim, the amount of the claim was unliquidated or subject to a bona fide dispute, and the claimant obtained payment of the instrument, the following subsections apply.

(2) Unless Subsection (3) applies, the claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that the instrument or an accompanying written communication contained a conspicuous statement to the effect that the instrument was tendered as full satisfaction of the claim.

(3) Subject to Subsection (4), a claim is not discharged under Subsection (2) if either of the following applies:

(a) The claimant, if an organization, proves that:

(i) within a reasonable time before the tender, the claimant sent a conspicuous statement to the person against whom the claim is asserted, which states that communications concerning disputed debts, including an instrument tendered as full satisfaction of a debt, are to be sent to a designated person, office, or place; and

(ii) the instrument or accompanying communication was not received by that designated person, office, or place.

( The claimant, whether or not an organization, proves that within 90 days after payment of the instrument, the claimant tendered repayment of the amount of the instrument to the person against whom the claim is asserted. This Subsection (3)( does not apply if the claimant is an organization that sent a statement complying with Subsection (3)(a)(i).

(4) A claim is discharged if the person against whom the claim is asserted proves that within a reasonable time before collection of the instrument was initiated, the claimant, or an agent of the claimant having direct responsibility with respect to the disputed obligation, knew that the instrument was tendered in full satisfaction of the claim.

(5) Merely writing a statement on a check which declares that a child support obligation is paid in full is not sufficient to bind the recipient who endorses the check. Child support obligations are considered owing unless paid in full or otherwise ordered by a tribunal.

[bluealex915]

One minute I read it as it would be ok to send a check and letter stating that if they cash the check they are accepting it as payment in full. The next time I read it it seems the opposite. Can you break it down for me and tell me in simple terms if sending the check and letter would be binding.

Thanks for your assistance, I really appreciate it.

[tattedbrat]

I am interested to know this as well...Washington State pretty much word for word has the same RCW all except for the last line about child support.

[BigDemocrat]

Restrictive Endorsements or indorsements work in Texas. I've done it.

CA got hold of wife's CC acct, unaware of mine with same CC bank. We made a settlement, put the restrictive on both sides of the check, both names, both account numbers, copied both sides of the check. The check was for more than the agreed settlement amount for the one acct. Check was sent to CA who used CC bank's account and endorsement stamp. Checn was processed normally. This is for me to defend myself is CC bank comes after me for the second account.

Do a web search under restrictive endorsements and one of the sites has a state by state rundown. Many states are just like Texas.

BigD

[BigDemocrat]

This where I found my information:

http://www.carreonandassociates.com/articles/4settle.htm

BigD

[blueranger]

I took law in college and

i remember that if you write

paid in full on the back of the check

and they cash it then its paid in full..

also write it on the front to be safe...

[Recovering Attorney]

in the memo line write " accord and full satisfaction" and your account number.

The law varies from state to state. The UCC covers teh sale of goods, not services such as telephone, so would not rely on the UCC. However, there should be case law in Utah that explains what the rule is. You can probably call your local lawyer referral service and get a lawyer to tell you for free.

[welch]

If your state allows, you can do this. Cali has very specific rules and Texas is open. I have done so, but you must send it the address they use for such full payment checks or the offer does not constitute accord and satisfaction. Most large companies have such offices and Sprint I'm sure does as well. It is worth a shot but usually only with small companies.

Note: They have 90 days after cashing to reject the accord and satisfaction with a refund.

[sdc2027]

So BLUEALEX915

what happened with your bill?

[bluealex915]

Well, I never really got the chance to use a restrictive endorsement with the CA for sprint. Let me tell you why, after the CA sent me the first collection notice I responded to them with a debt validation letter. After the letter I never heard another word from them again, It was almost like I was not worth coming after so they just let me go.

At least that is what I hope, sprint has never even reported my account to any of the CRA's so I guess I just lucked out. I sure hope I just didn't jinx myself on this one (ha,ha).

Well that is how it went down, I never heard another word from them, it has been about 5 months from the date of my debt validation letter.

[bluealex915]

Just an update on this one, as of this date I still have not heard a peep from sprint or any collection agency regarding this account. If they do respond in the future I will be ready for them. Since joining this message board I have become a sponge taking in all the knowledge that these great folks in here give. I am now finding myself giving advice to the guys I work with and other folks.

Thanks again to everyone.......