Of course it's legal. I can't imagine what the check-bouncer would sue for... Embarassment?

If Ricci's posting the truth about the matter he has *very little* to worry about.

I've done it. Some years ago when I had my own business I used this method for a couple of people, other local businessmen as it happens, who paid with bad cheques (sic) and refused to make good. It turned out to be very effective, but I only did it when other avenues (like asking nicely ten times in person and sending them letters) failed. I probably wouldn't do it these days.

I can't imagine what the check-bouncer would sue for...

I imagine it would either be libel or defamation of character.

I've seen plenty of places that post copies of bounced checks near their register.

Sounds like it's similar to the practice of publishing the names of people busted for solicitation in the newspaper.

And then that all goes back to the old Scarlet Letter, so the practice of humiliating wrong-doers has a history behind it ;)

My biggest concern would be in a situation where two people have the same name. John Smith #1 writes a bad check and refuses to make good, so his name goes on the marquee. John Smith #2 starts getting grief because people have seen "John Smith" on the marquee. It seems to me that John Smith #2 now has a pretty clear-cut defamation case.

You can't sue for libel (written defamation) if the published information is true.

Regarding the "John Smith's" argument: Post their address too. :)

Regarding the "John Smith's" argument: Post their address too. :)

I don't think that works when the marquee is your forum, since you're essentially relying on people to wait and read the whole thing, rather than glancing and catching a name.

And even in other forums, there are privacy concerns associated with posting the address without that person's permission; and even then, it still relies on observers to know where John Smith lives.

I couldn't even tell you where the majority of my coworkers live, even roughly, so attaching an address to the name isn't going to help me identify or rule out these people.

You can't sue for libel (written defamation) if the published information is true.

Technically, yes you can. You would just almost certainly lose. ;)

Post their picture...

LOL, just getting silly now... :P

(I'd do it, mind you...)

Well, sex offender registries aren't illegal.

there are privacy concerns associated with posting the address without that person's permission

Your address is in the phone book...type your phone number into Google and see what happens.

Your search - ###-###-#### - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:
- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Try different keywords.
- Try more general keywords.

(Numbers deleted.)

You see, I have an unpublished number. Even with a published number, you can opt not to have your address listed.

Well, sex offender registries aren't illegal.

But that's different. Sex offenders have been convicted through due process of law.

And you expect someone to sue over a $10 bounced check to obtain that due process?

I don't know. It just rubs me wrong using humiliation as a punishment, especially when, like others said, no one has been through any kind of due process. I don't know if it is legal or not. But, something strikes me as kind of vengeful about it, especially the attitude he gives off when he says "let them try to take me to court". I'm not sure I'd want to do business with an establishment that does such a thing. There are ways to go after people who've written bad checks.

And you expect someone to sue over a $10 bounced check to obtain that due process?

No, but that doesn't somehow magically make this more like a sexual offender list.

Frankly, I think the best answer is "don't take checks." Checks are fine for paying bills by mail, but they've got no business in a retail establishment.

An alternative answer is instant verification. The techonology exists today to read the account and routing numbers off the check. Why not then immediately draw the funds, or at least set them aside until such time as the check can be verified? This would eliminate the ability to "play the float" on checks, but as a retailer, I don't care about that.

Well, a sex offender list says: These people have been convicted of sex crimes.

His list says: This check by this person, payable to me was no good.

Both are factually accurate so i take no issue with either.

" This check by this person, payable to me was no good."

Well, no. it says "I SAY This check by this person, payable to me was no good." Its not the same thing - one has been proven, one has not.

I think in Michigan it's illegal to do this, although some do anyway.

cialis for ed

hows dat?

thanks for the wonderful stuff