Last week at my favorite BBQ Hut the cashier asked me to signed the back of my check. She had stamped the following ink stamp in the endorsement field on the back of the check. It read: The customer agrees to pay a $25.00 return fee should this check be returned. I told her if I signed the check in the endorsement field I would be endorsing the check. I told her That I did not think this was legal or necessary. A sign posted bearing the same info would probably suffice. Any thoughts??

It has generally been my understanding that a sign placing customers on notice that this is company policy would suffice. Maybe the business had a reason to believe that it no longer does - anyone?

Jokerman, I'd have to agree with you that signage is adequate. It's very possible that the BBQ Hut is simply MAKING SURE that the customer has read the return check charge policy. By endorsing the check, you've done nothing to change legal liability or anything that I'm aware of. Actually, this way, no customer can say that he/she didn't know about the return check charge. It seems, on the surface, to be a benefit to the customers overall.

Of course, after two trips through the system, it'll be murder to read the very important date stamps on the back with that extra stamp taking up room. Where does the restaurant actually stamp its endorsement if this stamp is in the endorsement section? Any other thoughts?

I told the cashier that I felt uncomfortable signing the check where an endorsement should go. I guess this thread has 2 questions. Is it OK to stamp and sign the check in the endorsement field and would a sign alerting all patrons of their return policy suffice?

Relying on information published on another web site, the amount and statutory justification for the merchant returned check fee in South Carolinais: $30 and S. C. Code Ann. f 34-11-70 (2002). (I do not have access to S.C. statutes, so I cannot take it from there.) I doubt that it requires you to sign an acknowledgement. As noted, a sign is probably all that is required. Your signature on the back of the check would be "surplusage" to the drawee bank; i.e. it would be unnecessary and ignored if properly endorsed by the payee.

It's the depositary bank that has the most to lose. If the restaurant's homemade remedy obscures the depositary bank's endorsement and causes the check to be late in being returned, they assume the risk.

There is also the requirement in NACHA Operating Guidelines, Section 4, Ch. 11 (page 160) that the consumer sign an agreement concerning the fee. And the guidelines suggest the agreement might be placed on the reverse of the check and signed. It cannot be placed on the front in such a way as to "borrow" the drawer's signature on the check.

Legal matters aside I have an ethical problem with the fact that she asked you to sign, didn’t tell you why, then placed a stamp next to your signature saying you had agreed to something.

They also don't have to accept a check.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but I'm wondering why you would be writing checks at a Barbecue Hut.

I've seen this when the check is being converted to an ACH POP transaction (check is read and returned to the maker on the spot) but not when it's going through the regular payment system. . . seems odd to me.

Ummm.... maybe to pay for a rack of ribs!

WHat happens if you now your bank returns the item "not endorsed as written." There is a difference regarding ACH in this, in that if they convert to POP at this time, the check is handed back to you. Having you sign the back would be pointless. Additionally, if they were not converting to ACH, but depositing as a check, why make you sign? Was the wording on the check that they would assess you a conversion fee on top of the NSF fee? That is the only reason I could see for your signature.

Heck...I would have said fine...give me back my check and use my debit card and pay the merchant fee.