Comments on: 5 Financial Myths Debunked

By: Kristy

Kristy — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:23:45 +0000

To clarify the check thing more and why it isn’t a document that can contain the words “paid in full” and be accepted as such, checks are simply a promise to pay. They replace cash when cash is not available. They are not a contract in terms of what will be paid when, etc., between two parties, only an admission of payment. The five areas of a check that are used for legal purposes are: the date (post- and stale-dated checks can legally be returned), the written amount (this is also considered the legal amount which banks and cashing parties are to go by), the numbered amount (the written and numbered amounts should match, but if they don’t, the written is the final rule), the signature (does the information match the signature at the bottom? Is there a signature at the bottom?) and the payee (the person that the check is made payable to should be the only one cashing the check. More and more banks are getting away from taking third party checks).

Anything else on the check barely registers on anyone’s radar – including the memo line where ‘paid in full’ is usually written. The memo line is really for the benefit of the person writing the check so they have a notation. It is not legally binding because it is not a contract, it is simply a promise to pay. You could write the same thing on cash and it wouldn’t mean anything, the same holds true for a check. That’s why it won’t hold up in court.

By: Kristy

Kristy — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:12:12 +0000

Hi Kathy,

That would still not stand in court as a complete admission to payment in full. If there is a dispute between the two parties, then an agreement needs to be reached and a judge will tell both parties to reach one. But, they’re not going to back that payment in full thing UNLESS the amount was actually paid in full. It’s a myth, there’s no grounds in which it is accepted as truth when more money is owed to a company.

By: Kathy

Kathy — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:57:15 +0000

About the payment in full thing: IF the amount that is owed is legitimately under dispute between the buyer and seller (there is no written contract, and the parties differ on what was actually agreed on), the buyer can write “payment in full” on a check. If the seller accepts it, it is his/her admission that this was, in fact, the amount that was owed.

Obviously, this is NOT applicable for credit card balances! Just because you would rather not pay the whole balance doesn’t mean the credit card statement is wrong! Although it would be cool if it worked.

By: Money Hacks Carnival #13 — Money Saving Hacks Edition | Moolanomy

Money Hacks Carnival #13 — Money Saving Hacks Edition | Moolanomy — Wed, 21 May 2008 11:32:16 +0000

[...] 5 Financial Myths Debunked posted at Master Your Card — Jonathan shares common financial misconceptions and explains why they are wrong. [...]

By: Kristy

Kristy — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:57:24 +0000

LOL…I’ve heard the “paid in full” one before as well! I seriously wonder where people get this stuff. I mean, do they honestly believe it’s true or are they hoping we won’t notice the craziness of it all?

Good times!

By: Mom @ Wide Open Wallet

Mom @ Wide Open Wallet — Tue, 20 May 2008 15:43:03 +0000

While I was working in credit card customer service I heard some good ones. One guy argued with me for a long time saying that we couldn’t charge him a late fee AND interest. lol… what do you even say back to that? Um… yes we can. And then another time a lady told me she didn’t owe us any money because she wrote “paid in full” on the check and we cashed it. So that clears her balance. If only it were that easy!