A customer purchases a cashier's check from my bank for a purchase of a car. A few days later he comes back to the bank with Cashiers Check he purchased and says "I decided I did not want to purchase car and I don't need this check". Bank types on back of Cashiers Check "not used for purpose intended" and credits the customers account. Would someone tell me if this process is correct?

The only thing I would have added was the the person listed as the remitter would have signed the check under the phrase "Not Used for Purpose Intended." Where the practice came from? What justifies it? Does it work only because there is no one to complain about it? I have never known. John might, so I'll see if I can rouse him.

In any case, it is a common practice among banks and, yes, I believe it to be correct.

Yawn! OK, OK, I'm awake!

We use the same "system." We don't always ask the remitter to sign the "Not used . . ." legend on the back; we should. I suppose it works because if the remitter and the payee are two different persons, the payee won't have an interest in the check until it's tendered (delivered) to the payee. But Ken's answer is a common-sense reply that works for me.