"John B" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb, 00:10, Michael Hoffman wrote:
As a punter, you've no knowledge of the internal processes of your
local council. If they pay cheques in automatically, thats entirely
their lookout. You gave a cheque with conditions attached to cashing
it, if they didn't read the conditions thats up to them.

Courts have repeatedly rejected this argument. See, for example:

Ackroyd v Smithies (1885) 54 LT 130
Day v McLea (1889) 22 QBD 610, CA
Nathan v Ogdens Ltd (1905) 94 LT 126, CA
Neuchatel Asphalte Co Ltd v Barnett [1957] 1 All ER 362, CA

But the precedents cited are about including misleading 'small-print'
disclaimers that are different from the intention of the transaction,
not blanket bans on attaching conditions to cheques.

If you were to send the council a letter saying "I've enclosed a
cheque for GBP60 because I only owe you GBP60, even though you claim I
owe you GBP120. If you cash the cheque for GBP60, I will take that as
an indication that you accept my claim", and write the same on the
cheque, I can't see how Neuchatel v Barnett would apply (in that case,
the cheque had conditions printed on the back that were *different*
from the covering letter).

(IANAL and there may be /other/ cases that establish you can't do the
above...)

IR v Fry is relevant here. Simply banking the cheque does not necessarily
imply acceptance of the offer.
http://www.andersonsolicitors.com/Downloads/IRvFry.pdf

Peter Smyth