What reason would a person have to use checks in stores?
Rational reason. They like this method of paying. There is a delay between writing the check and having the money removed from the account. Their checkbook makes a carbon copy of the check, so they can update their balance easier. They can leave the store and update their checkbook register, or the spreadsheet or their Quicken or budget application data. They don't have to try and remember the amount, store name or date. It's because they're used to it and it works for them.  Everything other reason is meh. Used to, you could float a check to payday... have no money in the account, yet write a check a couple days before payday because you know that's how long it takes for the check to get to your bank and when it does, you'll have the money.   But most (if not all) business that still accept checks (a dying subset, for sure) electronically present the check now.  They take it from your hand, run it through a machine at the register, and it immediately clears the bank, just like a debit card would.   We're nearing the end of the check era, atleast on personal accounts.  Kids growing up now won't even know what a check is, aside from it's namesake on a type of bank account. "Here's another rational reason: Discount. This typically works only in smaller stores, where you're talking directly to the owners, but it is sometimes possible to negotiate a few percent off the price when paying by check, since otherwise they'd have to give a few percent to the credit card company. (Occasionally the sales reps at larger stores have the authority to cut this deal, but it's far less common.) Not worth worrying about on small items, but if you're making a large purchase (a bedroom suite, for example) it can pay for lunch. And sometimes the store's willing to give you more discount than that, simply because with checks they don't have to worry about chargebacks or some of the other weirdnesses that can occur in credit card processing. Another reason: Nobody's very likely to steal you check number and try to write themselves a second check or otherwise use it without authorization. It's just too easy to steal credit card info these days to make printing checks worth the effort. But, in the end, the real answer is that there's no rational reason not to use checks. So it takes you a few seconds more to complete the transaction. What were you going to do with those seconds that makes them valuable? Especially if they're seconds that the store is spending bagging your purchase, so there's no lost time... and the effort really isn't all that different from signing the credit card authorization. Quoting Dean Inge: ""There are two kinds of fool. One says 'this is old, and therefore good.' The other says 'this is new, and therefore better.'"""
Given you mention a check clearing, in addition to debit card holds as JoeTaxpayer notes, you may also have funds that are on hold for that reason.  While the bank may have stated it would be a one day hold, some banks may mean business days (Monday-Friday), and so it will become available on Monday. This is because checks are not always instantly withdrawn from the other account (although this is becoming much more common post-electronic check reform), so the bank wants to make sure it actually is getting the money from the check; after all, if the check you deposited bounces, the bank doesn't want to end up footing the bill. The bank allows you some portion up front, largely as a customer service; the amount varies from bank to bank, but it's generally a small amount they don't mind risking.  $200 is a pretty good amount, actually; back when I was just out of college and frequently spending the last $50 in my account, the pre-clearance amount was usually $50. If the bank does this to you regularly and you feel that it is unfair in how long it holds checks, you might consider shopping around; different banks have different hold policies, or might allow you a larger amount up front.  In particular, online banks tend to have more favorable terms this way. In my opinion, separating your money into separate accounts is a matter of personal preference. I can only think of two main reasons why people might suggest separating your bank accounts in this way: security and accounting. The security reasoning might go something like this: My employer has access to my bank account, because he direct deposits my salary into my account.  I don't want my employer to have access to all my money, so I'll have a separate account that my employer has access to, and once the salary is deposited, I can move that money into my real account. The fault in this reasoning is that a direct deposit setup doesn't really give your employer withdrawal access to your account, and your employer doesn't have any reason to pull money out of your account after he has paid you.  If fraud is going to happen, it much more likely to happen in the account that you are doing your spending out of. The other reason might be accounting.  Perhaps you have several bank accounts, and you use the different accounts to separate your money for different purposes.  For example, you might have a checking account that you do most of your monthly spending out of, you might have a savings account that you use to store your emergency fund, and you have more savings accounts to keep track of how much you have saved toward your next car, or your vacation, or your Christmas fund, or whatever.  After you get your salary deposited, you can move some into your spending account and some into your various savings accounts for different purposes. Instead of having many bank accounts, I find it easier to do my budgeting/accounting on my own, not relying on the bank accounts to tell me how much money I have allocated to each purpose.  I only have one checking account where my income goes; my own records keep track of how much money in that account is set aside for each purpose.  When the checking account balance gets too large, I move a chunk of it over to my one savings account, which earns a little more interest than the checking account does.  I can always move money back into my checking account if I need to spend it for some reason, and the amount of money in each of the two accounts is not directly related to the purpose of the money. In summary, I don't see a good reason for this type of general recommendation. "Although not required, #2 would work best if you used magnetic ink... That is an extra cost which you may or may not want to pay for. You can often get a free checking account and a free set of checks if you can meet the minimum requirements. This often means a higher average daily balance, direct deposit, or some combination of multiple requirements. The bank is taking a risk that a client meeting those minimum requirements while likely earn the bank more in fees and services than what they give out for ""free"" such as the account and checks. My wife and I opened a Wells Fargo checking account two years ago. Back then, we were able to open the account for free along with a free set of 250 checks. I think the requirement now requires $7,500 average daily balance." "Thirtyfive years ago, when buying checks through one's bank was the sole option, if you got a ""business"" account with a bank, you had to buy ""business"" checks.  One difference between a ""business"" account and a personal account was that on the business account, the incorporated or unincorporated company (say Simply Wonderful Apps) had the option of changing from John Doe to Richard Roe as the Treasurer of Simply Wonderful Apps and the person signing the checks, whereas a personal account in John Doe's name could not be changed to allow Richard Roe signature authority over the account.  For a self-employed person doing business as Simply Wonderful Apps, a personal checking account would do just as well,  since the need to change the person responsible for signing checks might never arise. It was, of course, important to have a separate checking account for the business because it made book-keeping simpler and also separated business expenses deductible on Schedule C from personal expenses. But it was not necessary to have a business account or business checks to run a small business. In addition to the various advantages described in other answers, one advantage that I found for larger checks is that various money management programs could do things like print an address below the name on (computer-printable) checks so that after folding,  the check could be put into a window envelope and mailed directly. For the one check to a page format, the programs could print additional information on the blank area below the check (e.g. explanations about the check, company logo etc. So, it was convenient if one had to write several checks each month. But if  outgoing checks are infrequent and extra security is not much of an issue, there  is less reason to spend a lot extra on business style checks rather than the personal style checks." Why would such a large discount make business sense to the restaurant? The legit reasons could be;   Or can I assume that the restaurant is trying to avoid leaving a paper trail so that they could avoid paying tax? The illegal reasons could be; "I have seen the notation KTB written on documents in the place where you put an identifying number of some kind. It stands for Known to Branch and means the tellers recognize you. It's been written on documents of mine when I was depositing cheques large enough that someone else had to come and initial the transaction, and I presume that some people might have also had to show extra ID, but I didn't.  Just a month or so ago I was in line behind an old man at a branch where everyone has to put their card in and enter a pin to do transactions. I heard him tell the teller ""I don't have a card. Never did. Don't hold with that."" Another teller came by and said something quietly to the teller (I presume it was ""that's old Mr Smith, we all know him"") and the transaction appears to have taken place without any ID being passed across the counter.  So yes, at least in Canada, if the tellers recognize you, the requirements for ID are less than you might think. It's a bit of a long con to spend 25 years going into a branch and conducting all your business under a particular name, just so you can do a transaction or two without ID, though :-)" The very first time I bought a new car I wrote out a personal check for $5000 (this was a looong time ago!).  And got a call from the sales person that he had called the bank and was told that I did not have that much money in my checking account!  I explained that I had just that day transferred money from savings to checking.  The sales person accepted that and there was never a problem after that. "One other aspect of this is that the bank will plan to eventually approach the merchant that they are sending paper checks to and say ""why don't you sign up with us and give us your ACH info, and we won't send you checks?""  And a lot of merchants will say ""sure"", because someone has to open those checks and take them down to the bank, and that isn't free.  And that time while the money is in the mail, or sitting on someone's desk to be deposited, that is money that isn't working for you.  So everyone wins." "You can spend the money quite quickly. The problem is that if there is something wrong with the check, the bank will ask you for the money back. If the check is from a trusted source (a trusted friend, a business with good reputation etc.) that's fine. If the money is from an untrusted source, make sure that having to pay back the money doesn't get you into trouble. Since most people are honest, this is fine for a small amount, but if it's more than you can afford to pay back, don't spend it.  A simple scam is that people send you checks, ""by mistake"" the check is for the wrong amount, say $910 instead of $190, and they ask you to send the difference back. So you put $910 into your account, send them $720, and six weeks later your bank asks for their $910 back. If someone pays you too much on a check and asks you to pay them the difference, you know it is a scam." There is no reason you must buy the bank's printed check. There are many places both physical stores and on line the offer check printing.  From what I've seen, the requirement is the use of a magnetic ink the bank's equipment can properly scan. I may not even be correct there if they've all gone fully optical. The checks you buy on line are a fraction of the cost the bank would charge you.  Edit - On searching, I find VistaPrint offers free checks. I've not ordered checks from them, but I suspect free orders require you pay shipping. I've used VistaPrint for business cards, promotional items, and holiday cards. I can say, I've been pleased with their quality.  Update - The free checks from VistaPrint are no longer available. Some banks charge their own customers if they make use of a teller. That is what you are doing. You are going to a bank where you are not a customer and requesting a transaction that requires a teller. If you cash the check by going though your bank, the issuer's bank only handles it as a non-teller transaction. From my reading of the wikipedia page (CRT), this only happens if you deposit or withdraw currency, not checks.  The idea behind this is that checks, ACH, etc. leave paper trails that can be tracked.  Cash doesn't, so it gets this extra level of scrutiny.  If yu get a cashiers check or a money order to pay a bill, I don't think a CRT is created.  If you withdraw $15,000 to buy a car in cash (1 stack of $100 bills), then a CRT would be generated.  It still isn't a problem, as long as you can show a bill of sale showing where the money went (or came from, if you are the seller). The IRS has a FAQ about this.  It says (taken from several spots at that page): Cash is money. It is currency and coins of the United States and any other country.  A cashier’s check, bank draft, traveler’s check, or money order with a face amount of more than $10,000 is not treated as cash and a business does not have to file Form 8300 when it receives them. These items are not defined as cash because, if they were bought with currency, the bank or other financial institution that issued them must file a Currency Transaction Report. The exception to this is if you are buying something with a resale value of more than $10k with a check, money order, etc of less than $10k. I think he means you aren't legally obligated to show the receipt.  However, I'm not sure that store workers know the exact laws, and I don't know what your luck would be refusing to show them.  My guess is refusing would get you in an awkward argument and managers would be called and it wouldn't be worth the hassle compared to just showing the receipt in the first place. I doubt it has to do with the check though. Old people can be slow sometimes. I bet a younger person could write the check in a Reasonable amount of time. I lost my debt card a while back and needed groceries before I got my replacement it only added about a minute of transaction time for $200 in groceries which already takes a few minutes just to ring up. "I believe the banks are protecting themselves when they ""require"" your endorsement. Years ago. they used to ask for your endorsement, and not require it. If you endorse the check, it legally authorizes them to debit your account, if the check is later returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF). It mostly protects the bank, and not the customer."