Question

Winston was going to be out of town on September 1, when his rent would be due. On August 20 he gave his landlord Becky a check dated September 1, with instructions not to deposit or cash the check until September 1. As the instructions to Becky were clear, he did not notify the bank of the postdated check. On August 21, Becky deposited the check in her account at her bank and the check was dishonored on August 23. Which of the following is true of this scenario?

a. Winston has recourse against Becky as she did not follow his instructions.
b. Winston has recourse against Becky and the bank since it failed to refuse the item when deposited.
c. Winston has recourse against the bank as it failed to notify Winston of the check acceptance and failed to refuse the item when deposited.
d. Winston did not notify the bank not to pay it before the date on the check, hence he has no recourse.

Answer 1

Winston has recourse against Becky for depositing a postdated check before the date specified, as she did not follow his instructions to wait until that date to deposit or cash the check.

Step-by-step explanation:

The scenario presented involves a postdated check that was deposited before the date written on the check. The check was dishonored because the landlord, Becky, did not adhere to Winston's clear instructions to wait until September 1 to deposit the check. In this case, option a is correct: Winston has recourse against Becky as she did not follow his instructions. The bank is typically not at fault in this scenario because, unless notified otherwise, it can process a postdated check if presented for deposit or cash. Winston didn't inform the bank not to honor the check before the date specified, so he generally would not have recourse against the bank.