Need advice in a car sale transaction
02-04-2008, 08:49 PM
#17
Rennlist Member
While I understand the need to be cautious, I think there's a lot of fear being propagated here.
Firstly, so far as I know, wires can't be canceled or reversed once sent. My bank reminds me of this fact every time I do a wire. I also seriously doubt someone can take your wire info and withdraw funds from your account. The information required to perform a wire is in essence the same information available to everyone you write a personal check to (account name, bank name and address, account number, transit number and bank code) plus the SWIFT and/or ABA numbers (which are bank specific, not branch or account specific).
The reason a wire won't work is that there is no way to time receipt of the wire. Once the funds leave the sender's account, the funds can show up the same day and within a few hours in the recipient's account. Put yourself in the out-of-town buyer's position and tell me if you'd do this without being able to have the car and pink slip in hand before you receive funds?
So, that leaves certified funds. Take VTGSPD and jimbo3's advice.
BTW, I've bought about six cars, sight unseen, from US private parties and dealerships (I live in Canada) and have done dozens of wires over the past 10 years for both personal and business purposes. Also, my company performs international and national wires on a daily basis. In all these transactions, there has never been a problem or issue.
Firstly, so far as I know, wires can't be canceled or reversed once sent. My bank reminds me of this fact every time I do a wire. I also seriously doubt someone can take your wire info and withdraw funds from your account. The information required to perform a wire is in essence the same information available to everyone you write a personal check to (account name, bank name and address, account number, transit number and bank code) plus the SWIFT and/or ABA numbers (which are bank specific, not branch or account specific).
The reason a wire won't work is that there is no way to time receipt of the wire. Once the funds leave the sender's account, the funds can show up the same day and within a few hours in the recipient's account. Put yourself in the out-of-town buyer's position and tell me if you'd do this without being able to have the car and pink slip in hand before you receive funds?
So, that leaves certified funds. Take VTGSPD and jimbo3's advice.
BTW, I've bought about six cars, sight unseen, from US private parties and dealerships (I live in Canada) and have done dozens of wires over the past 10 years for both personal and business purposes. Also, my company performs international and national wires on a daily basis. In all these transactions, there has never been a problem or issue.
02-04-2008, 09:08 PM
#19
Drifting
I just bought a 993 in the US (I'm in Alberta) and the money was wired and in his account within 6 hours after I made the phone call to the bank. It was likely quicker but he didn't check his account until late afternoon. He was shocked at the speed of the transaction.
02-04-2008, 09:26 PM
#20
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get a major bank involved. Have him get a loan from the bank. The bank pays you and he can pay off the bank loan the next day if he wants to. He just has to wait for the pink slip for awhile. There are B of A's everywhere.
I wouldn't accept a cashier's check, having almost been scammed once (luckily my bank found out in time...).
I wouldn't accept a cashier's check, having almost been scammed once (luckily my bank found out in time...).
02-04-2008, 09:26 PM
#21
Seared
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
In this case, I had established a good rapport with the seller over numerous phone conversations and emails.
Andreas
02-04-2008, 09:44 PM
#22
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you should be cautious.
Here is a guide on check scamming issued by the OCC (this is a US banking regulator).
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/ADVISORY/2007-1.html
Last time I sold a car, I had the funds wired into my account, and once they cleared I handed over the keys.
If the buyer is asking you for your ID, that sounds pretty odd to me.
Be careful my friend.
Phil
Here is a guide on check scamming issued by the OCC (this is a US banking regulator).
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/ADVISORY/2007-1.html
Last time I sold a car, I had the funds wired into my account, and once they cleared I handed over the keys.
If the buyer is asking you for your ID, that sounds pretty odd to me.
Be careful my friend.
Phil
02-04-2008, 09:51 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 881
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
02-04-2008, 10:24 PM
#24
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: I should be in TNT for Carnival!
Posts: 10,149
Received 288 Likes
on
235 Posts
I bought a car a few weeks ago and this is how it went.
- Fax seller copy of check before hand.
- Took 6 am flight next day.
- Seller picks me up at airport
- Drives to bank and gives him cashier check
- He signs the title and I drive back home with his plates.
- Return plates in the mail next day.
- Fax seller copy of check before hand.
- Took 6 am flight next day.
- Seller picks me up at airport
- Drives to bank and gives him cashier check
- He signs the title and I drive back home with his plates.
- Return plates in the mail next day.
02-04-2008, 10:30 PM
#26
Wallflower
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Seems a bit odd. When I purchased my 993 on the other side of the country, I FedEX'd a $2,000 deposit to hold the car, dealt with the PPI and other matters in advance, and then flew out to see the car. I had a BoA cashier's check for $35k in my pocket. After all the pleasantries were done with, the title and check exchanged hands and I took off for home. Never an issue.
In this case, I had established a good rapport with the seller over numerous phone conversations and emails.
Andreas
In this case, I had established a good rapport with the seller over numerous phone conversations and emails.
Andreas
Cashiers checks can certainly be forged and stopped payment on.
02-04-2008, 11:03 PM
#27
Weathergirl
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
02-04-2008, 11:05 PM
#28
Cashiers Checks Are Pretty Secure
You cannot stop payment on a cashiers check without signing an affadavit that it was lost or stolen. It cannot be stopped for other reasons. If a buyer does this fraudlantly the bank will get involved.
Wires from a buyer are probably too much to ask unless you are a well known dealer.
Get a copy of the check, call the branch, make sure its good.
If someone wants your ID they are probably wanting to know who you are, ask for their ID back. Who cares if they know you. This makes as much sense as blocking out your plate number in bulletin board photo. Who cares?
Bank Checks and money orders are another story, they can be stopped all day long for no reason. The check must have the word "cashiers check" on it.
Wires from a buyer are probably too much to ask unless you are a well known dealer.
Get a copy of the check, call the branch, make sure its good.
If someone wants your ID they are probably wanting to know who you are, ask for their ID back. Who cares if they know you. This makes as much sense as blocking out your plate number in bulletin board photo. Who cares?
Bank Checks and money orders are another story, they can be stopped all day long for no reason. The check must have the word "cashiers check" on it.
02-04-2008, 11:12 PM
#29
Burning Brakes
While I understand the need to be cautious, I think there's a lot of fear being propagated here.
Firstly, so far as I know, wires can't be canceled or reversed once sent. My bank reminds me of this fact every time I do a wire. I also seriously doubt someone can take your wire info and withdraw funds from your account. The information required to perform a wire is in essence the same information available to everyone you write a personal check to (account name, bank name and address, account number, transit number and bank code) plus the SWIFT and/or ABA numbers (which are bank specific, not branch or account specific).
The reason a wire won't work is that there is no way to time receipt of the wire. Once the funds leave the sender's account, the funds can show up the same day and within a few hours in the recipient's account. Put yourself in the out-of-town buyer's position and tell me if you'd do this without being able to have the car and pink slip in hand before you receive funds?
So, that leaves certified funds. Take VTGSPD and jimbo3's advice.
BTW, I've bought about six cars, sight unseen, from US private parties and dealerships (I live in Canada) and have done dozens of wires over the past 10 years for both personal and business purposes. Also, my company performs international and national wires on a daily basis. In all these transactions, there has never been a problem or issue.
Firstly, so far as I know, wires can't be canceled or reversed once sent. My bank reminds me of this fact every time I do a wire. I also seriously doubt someone can take your wire info and withdraw funds from your account. The information required to perform a wire is in essence the same information available to everyone you write a personal check to (account name, bank name and address, account number, transit number and bank code) plus the SWIFT and/or ABA numbers (which are bank specific, not branch or account specific).
The reason a wire won't work is that there is no way to time receipt of the wire. Once the funds leave the sender's account, the funds can show up the same day and within a few hours in the recipient's account. Put yourself in the out-of-town buyer's position and tell me if you'd do this without being able to have the car and pink slip in hand before you receive funds?
So, that leaves certified funds. Take VTGSPD and jimbo3's advice.
BTW, I've bought about six cars, sight unseen, from US private parties and dealerships (I live in Canada) and have done dozens of wires over the past 10 years for both personal and business purposes. Also, my company performs international and national wires on a daily basis. In all these transactions, there has never been a problem or issue.
One other option to consider is an Escrow service. You and buyer could split costs. I use www.escrow.com a few times a month (no affiliation) when buying parts from a new vendor that wants money in advance but can't give me good references.
02-04-2008, 11:15 PM
#30
Follow up from Bankers On Line.com
Stop Payments On Official Bank Checks
Answer by: Ken Golliher, BOL Guru
BIO AND CONTACT INFO
Question: Is there any guidance as to when it is appropriate to put stop payments on official bank checks? We've had a couple of instances where customers have purchased cashier's checks, the checks eventually get lost in the mail, and then the customer wants us to readvance the funds without putting a stop payment on the original cashier's check. We've always told the customer that in order to readvance the funds they would first need to put a stop payment on the 1st check or wait until the 90 days has expired. We also have the customer sign an indemnification agreement.
Answer: We should all avoid using terms "stop payment" and "cashiers check" in the same sentence. Cashiers checks are accepted by the drawee bank when they are signed by an employee; i.e., at the moment of issuance. The bank cannot revoke its acceptance by stopping payment. That is one of the principal reasons why cashiers checks are generally required at real estate closings; the issuer of the item is irrevocably committed to making the payment. The remitter's or payee's perspective is not relevant; neither is liable on the item and neither can stop payment on it.
Section 3-411(b)(i) of the UCC explains how to calculate damages if a bank "...wrongfully refuses to pay a cashier's check or certified check." In many circumstances, a holder in due course on the cashiers check on which payment is refused would be entitled to compensation for expenses, interest and consequential damages in addition to the amount of the item. Please review your state's parallel provision of the UCC to make certain it takes the same approach.
Section 3-312 of the UCC controls the reissuance requirements. As you indicate, the remitter or payee is to execute the declaration of loss. After 90 days, if the item has not been presented, the bank is obligated to reissue the check. If the original check is presented later, the drawee bank may return it unpaid using "previously paid under declaration of loss" or "reissued under 3-312" as a reason for return. Even though the bank that replaced the check has been discharged on the item by replacing it under the terms of the statute, returning the check "payment stopped" is simply wrong. (In order to get the check to reject, you might have to put a stop payment on your system, but don't confuse the mechanics with the legalities.) Again, please check the parallel provision of your state's UCC to make certain the language is comparable.
Paragraph 3-312 was added to the UCC both to protect consumers and to give banks clear guidance on how to replace a cashiers check without enhancing their own liability. Measures used prior to its 3-312's passage included indemnification agreements and indemnification bonds.
An indemnification agreement is a simple contract between the bank and the party seeking to have the check replaced. According to its normal language, the customer agrees to make the bank whole if the original check is ever presented.
The value of the indemnification agreement depends on the customer's willingness to pay and ability to pay when the day comes. Obviously, that varies substantially based on the amount and the person involved. My personal opinion is that an indemnification agreement does not reduce the risk involved in any measurable way.
An indemnification bond is issued by an insurance company. The customer buys the bond at his own expense. If the original check ever shows up, the insurance company promises to make the bank whole. Such bonds are expensive and nearly impossible to get.
Banks who want to avoid all this commonly 1) pre-print a notice on the customer's copy of the cashiers check indicating it will not be replaced for 90 days if it is lost or 2) sell checks that do not meet the definition of a cashiers check; e.g. one drawn on the bank, but signed by the customer. (Such an instrument is often called a money order, but that term has no specific meaning under the UCC.)
Answer by: Ken Golliher, BOL Guru
BIO AND CONTACT INFO
Question: Is there any guidance as to when it is appropriate to put stop payments on official bank checks? We've had a couple of instances where customers have purchased cashier's checks, the checks eventually get lost in the mail, and then the customer wants us to readvance the funds without putting a stop payment on the original cashier's check. We've always told the customer that in order to readvance the funds they would first need to put a stop payment on the 1st check or wait until the 90 days has expired. We also have the customer sign an indemnification agreement.
Answer: We should all avoid using terms "stop payment" and "cashiers check" in the same sentence. Cashiers checks are accepted by the drawee bank when they are signed by an employee; i.e., at the moment of issuance. The bank cannot revoke its acceptance by stopping payment. That is one of the principal reasons why cashiers checks are generally required at real estate closings; the issuer of the item is irrevocably committed to making the payment. The remitter's or payee's perspective is not relevant; neither is liable on the item and neither can stop payment on it.
Section 3-411(b)(i) of the UCC explains how to calculate damages if a bank "...wrongfully refuses to pay a cashier's check or certified check." In many circumstances, a holder in due course on the cashiers check on which payment is refused would be entitled to compensation for expenses, interest and consequential damages in addition to the amount of the item. Please review your state's parallel provision of the UCC to make certain it takes the same approach.
Section 3-312 of the UCC controls the reissuance requirements. As you indicate, the remitter or payee is to execute the declaration of loss. After 90 days, if the item has not been presented, the bank is obligated to reissue the check. If the original check is presented later, the drawee bank may return it unpaid using "previously paid under declaration of loss" or "reissued under 3-312" as a reason for return. Even though the bank that replaced the check has been discharged on the item by replacing it under the terms of the statute, returning the check "payment stopped" is simply wrong. (In order to get the check to reject, you might have to put a stop payment on your system, but don't confuse the mechanics with the legalities.) Again, please check the parallel provision of your state's UCC to make certain the language is comparable.
Paragraph 3-312 was added to the UCC both to protect consumers and to give banks clear guidance on how to replace a cashiers check without enhancing their own liability. Measures used prior to its 3-312's passage included indemnification agreements and indemnification bonds.
An indemnification agreement is a simple contract between the bank and the party seeking to have the check replaced. According to its normal language, the customer agrees to make the bank whole if the original check is ever presented.
The value of the indemnification agreement depends on the customer's willingness to pay and ability to pay when the day comes. Obviously, that varies substantially based on the amount and the person involved. My personal opinion is that an indemnification agreement does not reduce the risk involved in any measurable way.
An indemnification bond is issued by an insurance company. The customer buys the bond at his own expense. If the original check ever shows up, the insurance company promises to make the bank whole. Such bonds are expensive and nearly impossible to get.
Banks who want to avoid all this commonly 1) pre-print a notice on the customer's copy of the cashiers check indicating it will not be replaced for 90 days if it is lost or 2) sell checks that do not meet the definition of a cashiers check; e.g. one drawn on the bank, but signed by the customer. (Such an instrument is often called a money order, but that term has no specific meaning under the UCC.)