what did you mean by what you said earlier, about how the receipt held more legal weight than bank records?
My understanding has always been that a written receipt of payment is solid legal standing that payment was made. For instance, if I sell a car to a guy, write him a bill of sale (i.e., purchase receipt), and hand him over the title, I can't come back later if his check bounces-- he can provide the bill of sale as clear proof of payment. My bank records that don't show a deposit don't legally prove he didn't pay. His bank records that don't show a withdrawal don't prove he didn't pay. The receipt is the legal proof that I accepted payment.
Now, maybe I'm wrong, but I have *always* heard this caution of NEVER writing a bill of sale/receipt before actually receiving actual funds, and have *never* heard anyone say otherwise. Why would my bank records trump a clear formal document from the other party attesting payment was received? They'd have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment over and above clear prima facie evidence to the contrary.
ok I can understand that. I will say your emails to the city employee came off to me more defensive/escalating than inquisitive. Especially when you questioned that they could be a scammer not upfront but after they gave some explanations to their claim. Just saying. Could just be variation in perception of text communication.
edit to add: it was hard not to infer that you hoped the city would capitulate and honor the receipt, despite you knowing that the money had not left your bank, from your narrative early in the thread
This has been the most intriguing piece of having posted this here for me. I'm taking this as a lesson in communication skills, because I somehow missed something in my perception of how I'm communicating that really bothered most all of y'all that responded.
I'm still not sure how to identify what was wrong with my communication with the City, but it triggered enough of you to call me rude and asinine that there's something I need to learn about how to phrase/frame my communication in this sort of situation.
Was I defensive? Absolutely. I've been steamrolled by people in power enough times that I have learned to never automatically trust what I'm being told by an authority figure, *especially* when it doesn't line up with what they told me before.
Do you actually think that if you took a check for selling a car, and the check bounced, you'd have no legal recourse if you gave a bill of sale? Collecting might be a challenge, but of course you could take him to court and likely prevail because you could show that his check bounced.
Like, do you really think that if the checked bounced, the guy gets a free pass because he has a "receipt"? Do you think that if you write a check for groceries and get a receipt, the grocery store can't come after you to actually pay for your milk and ground beef? You can't actually think that's how things work.
The reason people caution against taking a check for a car is that it would be a giant pain to try to recover your money (or your car) and you might not be successful if they don't have any money to give you, or you are 27th in line for creditors.
Your bank records wouldn't trump a bill of sale. But their bank records, showing the failed transaction (which would be the bounced check, or in the case of the city, they rejected bank transfer) would trump it. They show that the payment method offered by the seller (check/electronic payment) didn't not result in the agreed upon exchange of funds.
I just did a very quick google search but it seems most jurisdictions not only allow you to collect the amount of the bounced check, but many (most") allow you to collect additional damages as well. But I don't think you are actually saying all this in good faith, because you seem too smart to believe that if someone bounces a check, they can just stroll off into the sunset without having to make good, whether that's for a car or a dozen eggs.
Maybe I'm stupid, but I think I do really think that. Maybe not *zero* legal recourse, but extremely difficult recourse.
My understanding is that if someone presents prima facie evidence that they paid (payment receipt issued by the other party), the other party would have to somehow conclusively prove non-payment-- not just presenting a single failed transaction, but demonstrating no other successful transactions anywhere. Empirically proving a negative is very difficult.
I really don't know how grocery stores handle it, other than writing off the loss and/or hoping the person shows up again so they can add the bounced-check fee to his next purchase?
And you really do think that, even after I, and others, have told you that's not how it works, and 10 seconds of googling supports that? That's about 1/10th of the time you spent on your permit project.
The only proof you need is, "I have this check in my hand, and the bank will clearly tell you it bounced--in other words, I didn't get any money." Sure, if the payor then came forward and said, "I have bank info showing that I wrote another check, or did an online transfer in the same amount" or some other proof I actually had paid another way for that same transaction", then you would lose your suit, and for good reason. But the bounced check itself and supporting bank info is all you need.
Would it be a PITA to deal with? Yes. Is there a possibility you couldn't find the person, or when you did they didn't have the funds, or the declare bankruptcy and you get nothing? Yes. Those are the reasons you shouldn't take a personal check when you sell a car. Not that you have no recourse at all once you sign the paperwork.
If you truly didn't understand that, fine. If you still don't, it's because you don't want to and aren't dealing in good faith here. So, knowing this, it is clear that receiving a receipt that says the amount is paid doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for paying if your payment method later fails.
One of many, many, many results on a quick search:
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/i-received-a-bad-check-what-do-i-do-36291