Originally Posted by
American_National
Thank you for your thoughts and feedback . . . Great thought process and good verbiage above.
I can see a version of the above working to fully discharge/remove accommodation party status for the holder/payee in transacting the check/draft "medium of exchange" to keep it payable on the U.S. Treasury side of the house, but where would you, as the maker of any check/draft - place such payment restrictions on the face of the above working example of our check when it is labeled as - "Pay to the Order of: _ABC Company___ ?
The payee could place the following form of non-endorsement in writing on the back of the check/draft before transacting it to accomplish our goal:
**********************************************
Payee orders payment made in lawful money of the
United States and full discharge of accommodation
status is demanded for all related transactions.
transacting absent accommodation is authorized in U.C.C. 4-205
Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).
**********************************************
Or alternatively - an autograph could be placed below the payee order like the example shown below:
**********************************************
Payee orders payment made in lawful money of the
United States and full discharge of accommodation
status is demanded for all related transactions.
By: _______________________________________, Payee
Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).
**********************************************
Maybe the maker of the check/draft could place their demand in the For or Memo: ______________ field on the front of the check???
Maker requires payment to be made in lawful money of the
United States ONLY and full discharge for accommodation
status of parties in all related transactions is demanded.
Auth: ch. 6, 38 Stat. 251-275; Title 12 U.S.C. §411, §95a(2).
Any better or more precise/concise thoughts on how the maker can remove any remaining ambiguity restrict the transacting and payment of their check/draft to "lawful money" of the United States and keep their business affairs on the U.S. Treasury side of the house?