Could something similar to the westcap endorsment be used to modify the terms of open CC's cardmember agreement to escape from any arbitration clause?
Finally caught your post. Something one should try to understand and use that understanding in each individual situation. 1. Westcap is a contractual endorsement and that is entirely different than any other kind of endorsement even though there may seem to be similiarities. 2. Restrictive endorsements are different in that the restrict the cashier from doing something other than the payment was intended to do. For instance, a restrictive endorsement would be "paid in full" and that restricts the casher of the check from coming back and claiming that more is due on the account. 3. Accord & Satisfaction is a totally different concept yet. In A&S a bonafied dispute must first exist and both parties must agree that a dispute in fact exists. Then they have to reach an agreement as to what that dispute is worth and then comes the satisfaction of the new agreement. Arbitration is a forum, a formal meeting at which guilt or innocence in a civil matter is found and the matter adjudicated in a setting that is less formal than in a courtroom and subject to much less stringent proofs of indebtedness or fault and the penalty is "agreed" upon so that futher courtroom litigation should not be necessary although the findings of the arbitration board must still be affirmed by a court of law which is usually just a mere formality. Usually neither plaintiff nor debtor actually show up in person at any of the forum hearings. Those are the main differences. Once the explanations are understood then the answer obviously is in the negative.
