home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: misc.consumers
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!Xenon.Stanford.EDU!dash
- From: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
- Subject: Re: Service charge on returned check....
- Message-ID: <1992Aug30.044320.27383@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
- Originator: dash@Xenon.Stanford.EDU
- Sender: ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (David Ash)
- Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
- References: <10468@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> <1992Aug27.205220.13702@nynexst.com> <BtrF2J.A6E@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 04:43:20 GMT
- Lines: 20
-
- In article <BtrF2J.A6E@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson) writes:
-
- >I've always wondered how banks can get away with this considering, as the
- >first postered indicated, the person depositing the check has no way of
- >knowing it might not go thru! If they pass a charge along to the other
- >bank who then passes it along to the individual, I could see that, but
- >why should I get charged for trying to deposit a check?
- >
- >I think banks are getting way out of hand in this country!
-
- My opinion (and I know this will be a minority opinion) is that a charge
- for *writing* a bad check is even less justified than a charge for
- *depositing* a bad check. The reason I say this is that writing a bad
- check is a crime, and I don't believe that banks should be in the business
- of profiting from others' crimes.
- --
- David W. Ash | "What profits a man if he keeps his eternal soul
- ash@sumex-aim.stanford.edu | when he could have lived life to the full and
- HOME: (415) 497-1629 | been forgiven at the end of it all anyway?"
- WORK: (415) 725-3859 | --David Merritt, a.k.a. THE RED SHARK
-