Fingerprint recognition in schools

[Nicholas Bohm]

Peter Fairbrother wrote:
> Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> 
>>
>> But the real point is that although cheques are a nuisance to pay with
>> and to receive, as a form of payment they have the advantage that a
>> forgery is almost always a nullity (s24 Bills of Exchange Act 1882:
> 
> Would that also apply to the signature on a chip-n-signature card
> payment slip?

There's said to be doubt whether such slips are bills of exchange within
the statutory definition, though I'm not familiar with the technical
argument.

But if s24 doesn't apply, it reflects the common law anyway, that the
claimant bank has to prove the customer's authority to debit the
account, and a forgery doesn't give authority.  The problem might be
that the common law (unlike s24) could be overridden by contract terms.
 But (a) there's always the unfair terms stuff and (b) the banks don't
purport to dispense with the need to prove authority, they just claim
they've proved it when they haven't.

Nick
-- 
Salkyns, Great Canfield, Takeley,
Bishop's Stortford CM22 6SX, UK

Phone  01279 870285    (+44 1279 870285)
Mobile  07715 419728    (+44 7715 419728)

PGP public key ID: 0x899DD7FF.  Fingerprint:
5248 1320 B42E 84FC 1E8B  A9E6 0912 AE66 899D D7FF