Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!lll-winken!telecom-request From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Re: Did MCI Give me $20? Message-ID: Date: 18 Mar 91 18:27:12 GMT Sender: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu Organization: Cal State Long Beach Lines: 35 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 216, Message 6 of 10 In article peter@taronga.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > I've gotten similar checks (for $5) for "insuring" my credit cards (!). > I've always just deposited them and left the credit card part blank. > I can certainly use the money. About three weeks later I get a letter > reminding me that I haven't given them a credit card number, which I > ignored. If someone send you something unsolicited in the mail, it's > yours. I'm aware of that law (postal regulation?) but I'm not sure whether it would also apply literally to negotiable instruments (i.e. forms of money). However, what MCI is sending could also be classed as a contractual offer which you are free to accept (by affixing your signature) or reject (by ignoring) just like like magazine subscription offers or many other types of solicitations that are sent by mail. Since the banks have better things to do than administer and enforce someone elses contracts and these days may accept checks for deposit without endorsement (ATM's) they consider the contractual aspects the problem of the issuer; they are only interested in the negotiability. In contractual law you can be deemed to have agreed to a contract if you accept the benefits afforded by the contract whether or not you formally sign anything. Often, this may be the measure of a verbal contract's enforceability. It seems to me that by depositing these checks you are *implicitly* agreeing to the terms of the associated contract since the act of deposit affords you the benefits of it. I expect that the companies doing this have obtained legal guidance on this that exceeds the legal expertise commenting on this (present company included) and know the thing to be enforcable. It's just not worthwhile for a few breakers.