It is the afternoon of Friday the 13th and you have appointments with four clients, all of whom require advice on problems with cheques.

The Bills of Exchange Act may not be your favourite weekend reading.

However, the answers to the problems can sometimes be found elsewhere.Client A is a self-employed business consultant who has recently bought a lap-top computer.

He paid by cheque.

After a week, the computer crashed.

He lost valuable data.

The supplier showed little interest and the client stopped his cheque.

He has now been served with a default summons.

He wishes to defend and counterclaim for losses consequential on the failure of the computer.He will have a problem in this respect.

Even if he files a defence and counterclaim, the supplier can apply for summary judgment and will probably succeed.

Other than in exceptional circumstances, a defendant will not be permitted to set off or counterclaim in an action based on a dishonoured cheque and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment without any stay of execution.

A cheque is taken to be the equivalent of cash for this purpose.

See the notes to RSC 014 r.4 in the Supreme Court Practice.Client B is a builder who has taken a series of post-dated cheques from a customer.

The cheques which have been presented have been paid, but before the date on the next cheque in the series, the customer has told the client that he has no more money.

The client has stopped work and wishes to know whether he can sue on the post-dated cheque.This problem arose in Fielding & Platt Ltd v Najjar [1969] 2 All ER 150 where the Court of Appeal held that there could be no action on a post-dated promissory note if the work had been suspended and that any proceedings would have to take the form of a claim for damages, which the defendant could defend by set-off or counterclaim.Client C has had some repairs done to his central heating system.

The work was carried out by an engineer employed by a firm of heating engineers.

The client was not at home when the work was finished and the client's daughter paid for the repairs by drawing a cheque on her bank account and giving the cheque to the engineer.When the client returned home, he found that the central heating was still not working properly and his daughter stopped the cheque.

The daughter has now received a default summons and the client wishes to know whether she has a defence.The Court of Appeal was divided on this issue in AEG (UK) Ltd v Lewis The Times 29 December 1992.

McCowan and Nourse LJJ held that the judge in the lower court had rightly held that there was an absence of consideration for the cheque and that the daughter, as a volunteer, was entitled to stop the cheque.

The engineer had no authority on behalf of his employers to release the client from his debt and thus give consideration for the cheque.

Hirst LJ, dissenting, considered that the engineer did have the authority and that a con tract had been created for good consideration.

He drew the analogy of a passenger in a car paying his cheque for petrol which the car owner had already put in his tank.

In such a case, the garage should have a cause of action against the passenger if the cheque was subsequently stopped.Client D has been sued by his accountant for unpaid fees.

He says that he gave the accountant a cheque for the fees before the proceedings were commenced but that the accountant lost the cheque.

He does not see why he should do any more.While the client may have a defence of tender before action, his attention must be drawn to RSC 018 r.16, which provides that the defence does not become available until the sum alleged to have been tendered has been paid into court.