- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Gilmartin (1983)
Post-Dated Cheques & DeceptionI. Facts of the Case
Post-Dated Cheques & DeceptionI. Facts of the Case
- Defendant (D): Owned a company.
- Action: Signed four post-dated cheques.
- Three for goods purchased for his company.
- One payable to a company his business had an account with.
- Financial Situation: Company heavily overdrawn.
- Outcome: All four cheques were dishonoured.
- Subsequent Action: D sold the goods bought with the cheques and received cash cheques in return.
- Charge: Charged under ss 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968.
- Defense: D claimed he intended to buy back the post-dated cheques with the cash.
- Whether issuing a post-dated cheque constitutes a representation regarding future ability to pay, and if a false representation can amount to deception under the Theft Act 1968.
- Implied Representation: The drawer of a post-dated cheque impliedly represents to the payee:
- Present Situation: That on the date the cheque is handed over, the situation is such that...
- Future Honouring: ...when the cheque is presented, it will be honoured on or after the date specified.
- False Representation & Deception:
- If the drawer knew the bank would not honour the cheque on that date, then the representation is false.
- This false representation could amount to deception.
0 Comments