UNSIGNED CHEQUE

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXV, Issue 19777, 3 November 1938, Page 5

UNSIGNED CHEQUE

VALIDITY OF TENDER

hiYRUM;EXT OPINIONS

row Eli I’.oAIJD msrf'SEION

The question whether an unsigned cheque should be considered a formal deposit, or whether it invalidated the tender with which it was sent, was discussed at a meeting of the Auckland Electric-Power Board. The board was considering tenders lor supplies, for which (he specifications demanded the inclusion oi' a cheque or deposit with each tender.

Mr. .1. Saycgh said lie considered they should not depart from the specifications in eases of the kind. The signature of the firm was lacking, and [hat was enough to make the cheque unnegotiahle. iPa'obably a mistake had been made, but that was no reason why they should accept the lender. Other firms who had complied with the specifications might reasonably object.

Even a signature on a cheque was no indication that it. would be honoured by the bank, said Mr. C. .).

Lovegrove. He knew from his own experience that the mistake was a [■ommon one, and many business men bad had the experience of sending nit an unsigned cheque.

"If the cheque is honoured if will be nl! right.," said Mr. .1. Park. "Apparently there has been an oversight." The secretary. Mr. N. M. Speer. ;aid that it was the practice of the ooard to hold all cheques received with lenders until the selection was made to save the board from the necessity of drawing cheques for the •epayment of unsuccessful tenderers, if they adhered strictly to the speeiieations many lenders would be invalidated. A motion to reject the tender as n formal was rejected by seven votes o two, Mr. Savegh and Mr. F. M. Waters dissenting.