[didn't get John B's message on my system for some reason, so I am
replying to Peter Smyth's quotation of it]

Peter Smyth wrote:

"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.

Neuchatel Asphalte may be, but Day v McLea is not. It was quite clear to
Day that McLea intended his cheque to be "in full of all demands" yet he
accepted it only as partial payment.
--
Michael Hoffman