Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;NorthKorea, post: 2513876, member: 29643&quot;]I think, barring some specific line in the lease contract stating otherwise, that the rejects &quot;belong&quot; to the owner of the machine. My reasoning is this:</p><p><br /></p><p>The lease agreement involves a maintenance contract, apparently. This contract likely involves the bank receiving the deposit proceeds of the machine (the exact count), while the machine owner is responsible for sorting through whatever garbage is in the trap/chute.</p><p><br /></p><p>It doesn&#039;t make sense for the bank to &quot;empty&quot; the trap while not cleaning out the chute. It&#039;s entirely possible that the owner/service tech was concerned due to an issue with technical adjustments that the placement of things and how that affects the counting mechanisms.</p><p><br /></p><p>The bank *might* have a key for the specific reason of someone dropping jewelry, keys or something else into the hopper by mistake or for emptying the primary collection tray (the &quot;counted&quot; side). Either way, there&#039;s no logical reason for the bank to claim &quot;ownership&quot; over the abandoned property, let alone to give the items to a customer.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in