The High-touch Legal Services® Blog • For Startup Companies

A customer owes you money but is disputing the amount that should be paid. To your surprise, you receive a check for half of the amount in question. On the back, the customer has written “Payment in Full”. If you deposit the check, will you give up the right to ask for the other half of the disputed amount?

The answer depends on which state’s law governs the transaction. I will provide an answer based on California law.

“Payment in Full” or a similar legend is referred to as a restrictive endorsement. Enacted in 1987, California Civil Code Section 1526 at one time allowed the recipient, under certain circumstances, to strike out the restrictive endorsement, deposit the check, and seek payment of the rest of the disputed amount.

However, in 1992 that statute was superseded by Commercial Code Section 3311, which states that, generally, if there is a bona fide dispute and the check bears a prominent restrictive legend specifying payment in full, then by depositing the check the recipient accepts the check as full payment and gives up the right to ask for the rest of the disputed amount.

The bottom line: In California, a restrictive endorsement on a check generally will be enforced.

This blog does not provide legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal advice, please contact an attorney directly.

Although the recession officially may have ended, bankruptcy filings – a lagging indicator – continue to rise. Consequently, companies need to be extra vigilant when they decide how far to extend credit to their customers. A recent development for one of my clients (“Client”) illustrates this point.

Client sells its products exclusively through resellers. Over the course of 18 months, one of them (“Reseller”) had become Client’s largest customer based on the volume of goods purchased. Throughout that period, Reseller had paid every bill on time.

Read more…

Last month, I posted Your Business is Dead – Are You Liable for its Obligations?, which stated that, generally, once a business is dissolved, the owners will be personally liable for the business’s obligations only to the extent that the owners received distributions at the time of dissolution.

A significant exception to the foregoing rule, however, concerns company personnel who are responsible for making, but fail to make, withholding payments to the Internal Revenue Service.

Read more…