IT used to be that you could go down to the bank, and they would "certify" your check on its face. All that meant was that you had the funds in the bank to cover that check, and they would put a hold on that amount until the check cleared.
THen there were too many dishonest people doing it themselves, so that no longer is proper.
A bank check drawn on a bank itself, or a money order like you can get anywhere are considered certified funds. You pay for them in cash, and the bank then makes the check good.
Problem is that the thieves are really good at printing up these documents, and they look exactly like the real thing. And an additional problem is that check printing stuff is out there, along with blank check paper available from any office store.
The problem also lies with UPS knowingly continuing to do business with this type of customer. IT is a serious issue company wide. And more and more, UPS is looking to the drivers for repayment.
C
All of our drivers are trained to read the labels. The driver never read the label properly on the package. He took this to a grievance panel with a union and agreed with us," said Dan McMackin, Spokesman for UPS.
So instead of paying the $20,000 Daniels owes, he'll only be responsible for a portion of what UPS lost.
I would suggest that until I see the evidence in this case,
the $20,000 Daniels owes is something of a assumption on our parts. The spokes person agreed with UPS, so then why would it not be the 20 grand, instead of just one. Part of that I believe are the limits of the driver set by the contract.
But the fact still remains, If he took what the tag suggested, and the diad prompted, then his liability should be zero. If he took two personal or company checks instead of certified funds, then he should be held responsible for at least part of the loss.
d