LibriumArcana.Games

Weird question here that I'm having a hard time finding an answer on google for:

Note: I am looking for both what would happen under current law and what you think is fair.


Say you have a payment due on the 30th, and you mail out a check on the 29th. It arrives to the bill collector on the 31st.

The bill collector assesses you a late fee. Can you get out of it by showing the postmark as being the 29th?


My gut here is you should still get the late fee - it was your responsibility to ensure that it gets in on time, and you should have known the mail can take a couple days to be delivered. Thus, you should have known to mail it out a couple days early.


Suppose the situation changes slightly: you send an e-check or a phone payment or whatever on the 29th. Thus, their system knows you sent it on the 29th. However, it takes a couple days for the check to clear the banks, so the funds aren't transferred until the 31st. Should you be charged a late fee?

Once again, my same argument from above applies: you should have known that the banks take their sweet time. You should have accounted for this and called in the payment early enough. It isn't your fault that the banks are slow, or that the mail takes some time, but you still should have known better and taken responsibility for it.


If you say yes here, does it change the check in the mail argument? Suppose the check did arrive on the 30th, when the payment was due. But they take it to the bank, and it doesn't post for a couple days. Does this mean you get a late fee?

While the logic from above can still apply, there is a complication with a check. Suppose it arrived on the morning of the 28th. If the collector immediately took it to the bank, it could clear by the end of the day on the 30th. But, if the collector waited until the next day to go to the bank, it will now clear a day late.

Should you get the late fee now? What if the bill collector held onto the check for two days? At this point, I don't think you should get a late fee. This is well beyond your control - if he could charge you the late fee, what's to stop him from just holding the checks until the due date and claiming you were late?


This is a little iffy.

a) What do you think about the abstract argument here? Should the payer take the responsibility to account for mail, bank, and reasonable check holding delays? What is a reasonable delay to account for?

b) Anyone have any experience/knowledge on how this works in the real world?

Most collection/billers will tell you right on the statement "Payment must be recieved, not mailed by the date in question." They will also say it is your reponsilbity to ensure timely arrival, not theirs.

Once again, my same argument from above applies: you should have known that the banks take their sweet time. You should have accounted for this and called in the payment early enough. It isn't your fault that the banks are slow, or that the mail takes some time, but you still should have known better and taken responsibility for it.

No. If they have the method of payment in hand by the time it is due, then you are not longer responsible. So long as they have the check etc by the due date, it is not your fault if they deposit it late, or the bank takes a while a process the docs.

I'd say that you are responsible for providing them with the means of payment by the time it is due, that means they must have it before that point in time.

You are not responsible for what happens after that. Its their responsibility to ask for the means of payment early enough for them to avoid any difficulties. After all, they need to foot their own bills in a timely manner too.

My experience has been if they have the check on the day they tell you the bill is due (I've done this once or twice) then you're cool. I would try to get the bill in before though.