Maximum USPS Money Order is 700.


In the Fraud-Dssman thread (great BTW), just about everyone recommends using USPS Money Orders to do i-net business. I just got off the 'phone with the USPS, and the maximum amount the USPS will write a M.O. for is $700., so on a $5K deal you (the buyer) would need eight M.O.s Is this a reasonable or practical way to do business? I say no, and that's where Cashier's Checks come in, ie for higher dollar purchases.

For smaller purchases needing only one or two M.O.s, they are just fine, but realistically, how many of us want to make out a bunch? Comments?

Interestingly, on two of the most expensive components I've purchased, the seller said a personal check (not a cashier's check) would be just fine, and that is what I used. This was after telephone conversations.

Also, apparently some people do not know what a "cashier's check" is. On at least three occasions (when selling), I've specified M.O. or cashier's check, only to have a personal check show up. In all cases the checks were good. Any comments? Craig
garfish
usps money orders are generally safer forms of payment then either cashier, "bank," or personal checks. while it may be difficult, in many cases, to stop payment on a cashier's check, it can, and often is, done by unscrupulous folks. other scammers make color copy or other reproductions and "replicas"of cashiers or bank checks; these perps frequently operate on a rather grand scale, engaging in multiple instances of the same crime. i once represented a bank, for example, that was taken down for tens of thousands of $$ by an organized ring of foreign nationals that used a check kiting scheme designed to take advantage of the friday after thanksgiving, when most bank officers are still on holiday.

tho i've bought and sold on audiogon, i've had many more internet transactions on ebay. unless i know my buyer well, i will not send any merchandise until the payment clears. the only exception is for usps money orders. i will not buy from ANYONE unless i have had prior dealings with him/her or have spoken to the seller after checking out feedback or, in big $$ transactions, references.

given the ease of deception in internet sales, i think it inevitable that sites such as this one MUST establish escrow services. audiogon sez they are going to do so. i applaud them.

some other random thoughts: you can buy usps MO's with a "true" debit card (i.e., one that does not have a "line of credit" associated with it); if you have access to a merchant account, beware the "chargeback artists" and sell on "credit" with the same skeptical eye as you'd focus on "cash" sales"; be prepared to have your claim denied if you send cash via overnite courier anywhere.

the bottom line here is rather simple: trust no one but your brother or best friend, tho set that limit of trust no higher than the amount you can truly afford to lose.

-kelly
where's the edit function? first line of last post "then" should be "than." sorry. -kelly
Kelly, is it not true that you can trust a lawyer, i.e., a member of the Bar?
Speaking of check fraud, once represented a brokerage firm that was misfortunate enough to cash a fraudulent U.S. Treasury Check for $10,000,000 (yep, that's seven zeros). The perp was actually in jail in Thailand for similar escapades around the world, but had managed to blow, conceal, or otherwise disburse all of his ill gotten gains and thus was a virtually empty pocket (not to mention in jail in Thailand with a whole gaggle of different governments waiting for a piece of him). The fraud wasn't caught until the check actually got to Treasury almost a month later (having passed through no less than three banks on the way) and the poor brokerage firm gets stuck holding the bag. There are some real devious folk out there, to be sure.
paulwp: i'd trust another lawyer no more than a member of the clergy. as many a scoundrel has been allowed to pass through the bar as has bellied up to one. that's but a single of many reasons i enjoy representing plaintiffs in legal malpractice actions. -kelly