On 5 Feb, 17:59, "Peter Smyth" wrote:
As a punter, you've no knowledge of the internal processes of your
local council. If they pay cheques in automatically, thats entirely
their lookout. You gave a cheque with conditions attached to cashing
it, if they didn't read the conditions thats up to them.

(IANAL and there may be /other/ cases that establish you can't do the
above...)

IR v Fry is relevant here. Simply banking the cheque does not necessarily
imply acceptance of the offer.
http://www.andersonsolicitors.com/Downloads/IRvFry.pdf


Yup, that one works. Although note "practical points 2a-c" in the
linked document.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message , Michael Hoffman
writes
Ackroyd v Smithies (1885) 54 LT 130
Day v McLea (1889) 22 QBD 610, CA
Nathan v Ogdens Ltd (1905) 94 LT 126, CA
Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 All ER 362, CA
Interestingly, none less than 50 years ago.
--
Clive.

[didn't get John B's message on my system for some reason, so I am
replying to Peter Smyth's quotation of it]

Peter Smyth wrote:

"John B" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 00:10, Michael Hoffman wrote:
As a punter, you've no knowledge of the internal processes of your
local council. If they pay cheques in automatically, thats entirely
their lookout. You gave a cheque with conditions attached to cashing
it, if they didn't read the conditions thats up to them.

Courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. See, for example:

Ackroyd v Smithies (1885) 54 LT 130
Day v McLea (1889) 22 QBD 610, CA
Nathan v Ogdens Ltd (1905) 94 LT 126, CA
Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 All ER 362, CA

But the precedents cited are about including misleading 'small-print'
disclaimers that are different from the intention of the transaction,
not blanket bans on attaching conditions to cheques.

Neuchatel Asphalte may be, but Day v McLea is not. It was quite clear to
Day that McLea intended his cheque to be "in full of all demands" yet he
accepted it only as partial payment.
--
Michael Hoffman

Clive. wrote:
In message , Michael Hoffman
writes
Ackroyd v Smithies (1885) 54 LT 130
Day v McLea (1889) 22 QBD 610, CA
Nathan v Ogdens Ltd (1905) 94 LT 126, CA
Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 All ER 362, CA
Interestingly, none less than 50 years ago.

Peter Smyth also posted Inland Revenue v Fry from 2001.
--
Michael Hoffman

Richard J. wrote:
Tony Dragon wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
I have written a letter contesting a PCN .

the decision letter give me another 14 days to pay only 60 quid?

Round my way the clock stops if you appeal.

Same here. Hounslow stops the clock and restarts it from zero (i.e.
you get a full 14 days to pay the reduced rate) if they reject your
challenge.

Thanks. My appeal was rejected, and Hackney have given me another 14 days to
pay the reduced rate.