RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 21, 10:14 am, dpb wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
On Jun 21, 9:28 am, dpb wrote:
RicodJour wrote:
...Lecture snipped...

Damn, and I worked so hard on the thing! I hate editors.

Ain't science wunnerful?

....

...If we always agreed I probably wouldn't like you so much.

Dang! You WOULD go and throw _that_ in there...

I like things to be spelled out up front. You can say
yes or no to the request.
All I did was recommend to OP to say "No" to the request by writing the
check to the name on the invoice letterhead, not the personal name at
the bottom, so it seems we also agree...

Whether it's in the memo field, a signed receipt, whatever, you're
just protecting your interests and there are plenty of ways to do
that. I just don't see the need to get into guessing the contractor's
motivation and all of that. If you have a question, ask it. If you
don't like the answer, do what you feel is best.
....

I simply recommended my choice in how to protect my interest best for
the specific case--really no more, no less. If an invoice is presented
from an entity, imo payment should go to that entity. A memo field
certainly would have some bearing, but whether there's any difference in
legal status if push came to shove in a formal dispute resolution I
don't know -- I simply know it would be unequivocal if the check were
indeed made to the entity which seems my best protection. That it also
provides at least some assurance that the recipient be required to
follow the rules of the game, so to speak, is a side benefit.

(As a sidelight, if the invoice had actually been submitted on a scrap
of paper in the guy's handwriting and only his signature below it, I
almost certainly would have paid it that way w/o questioning it -- it's
the dichotomy of a prepared invoice and the written request in
contradiction to it that raises the flag. IOW, imo the contractor
brought this on himself in this case. Although if he had up to this
point made proposals on nice forms and presented business cards, etc., I
might have then done the "why no inovice?" question. It all depends on
how it "feels" overall and this just doesn't seem legit.)

That I can't see any other reason than a desire to subvert those rules
(or other similar ones as in the judgment issue, etc.) is certainly part
of it. I look on it kinda' like locks -- they don't prevent the
determined from breaking and entering, but the do serve to keep the
basically honest that way. I like to spread good wherever and whenever
I can...

Are we done now (are we there yet)?

--