Cheques Act Assignment
I am to advise Dr. Duck in regards to the application of the Cheques Act 1986 (Cth) (The Act) in relation to the cheques he has written. The particular issues are with post-dating of the cheque for $90,000 drawn in favour of Ken Broome, the validity of the unsigned, undated cheque, and whether the delay of Ikea Medical Furniture presenting the check drawn in favour of them affects payment.
1 The cheque for $90,000 drawn in favour of Ken Broome
The issues with this cheque was that the cheque for $90,000 drawn by Dr Duck was delivered to Ken Broome, on the 9th of January 2012, even though it was agreed to by both parties to be banked on the 30th of January 2012. However, despite this agreement, Mr. Broome deposited the cheque on the 15th of January 2012. To determine whether this cheque is valid, it must be examined whether or not the complies with the definition of a cheque in s10(1) . Then effect of depositing a post-dated cheque must also be examined under The Act, to determine its validity.
1.1 Is it a cheque?
S10(2) uses clear language that expresses the parliament’s intention that any instrument which doesn’t comply with s10(1) is not a cheque under The Act . Therefore the instrument must comply with all the criteria under s10(1).
According to s10(1)(a), the cheque must be an unconditional order in writing that is addressed by a person to another person, being a financial institution . This is clear on the facts; the cheque is being written by Dr Duck drawn on St. George Bank (the financial institution) to Ken.
The next requirement (s10(1)(b)) is that the cheque is signed by the person giving it . This is also clear on the facts. The last requirement (s10(1)(c)) is that the cheque requires the financial institution to pay on demand a sum certain in money . S16(2)(b) states that a cheque is not invalid if it is antedated or post-dated (in this case, it was post-dated). S16(3) of The Act also states that the fact an instrument is post-dated will
1 The cheque for $90,000 drawn in favour of Ken Broome
The issues with this cheque was that the cheque for $90,000 drawn by Dr Duck was delivered to Ken Broome, on the 9th of January 2012, even though it was agreed to by both parties to be banked on the 30th of January 2012. However, despite this agreement, Mr. Broome deposited the cheque on the 15th of January 2012. To determine whether this cheque is valid, it must be examined whether or not the complies with the definition of a cheque in s10(1) . Then effect of depositing a post-dated cheque must also be examined under The Act, to determine its validity.
1.1 Is it a cheque?
S10(2) uses clear language that expresses the parliament’s intention that any instrument which doesn’t comply with s10(1) is not a cheque under The Act . Therefore the instrument must comply with all the criteria under s10(1).
According to s10(1)(a), the cheque must be an unconditional order in writing that is addressed by a person to another person, being a financial institution . This is clear on the facts; the cheque is being written by Dr Duck drawn on St. George Bank (the financial institution) to Ken.
The next requirement (s10(1)(b)) is that the cheque is signed by the person giving it . This is also clear on the facts. The last requirement (s10(1)(c)) is that the cheque requires the financial institution to pay on demand a sum certain in money . S16(2)(b) states that a cheque is not invalid if it is antedated or post-dated (in this case, it was post-dated). S16(3) of The Act also states that the fact an instrument is post-dated will