(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 706, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1 ; Mar. 23, 1995, D.C. Law 10-249, § 2(e), 42 DCR 467 .)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:4-406.
1973 Ed., § 28:4-406.
Section References
This section is referenced in § 28:3-417 and § 28:4-208 .
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
1. Under subsection (a), if a bank that has paid a check or other item for the account of a customer makes available to the customer a statement of account showing payment of the item, the bank must either return the item to the customer or provide a description of the item sufficient to allow the customer to identify it. Under subsection (c), the customer has a duty to exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or the returned item to discover any unauthorized signature of the customer or any alteration and to promptly notify the bank if the customer should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized signature or alteration.
The duty stated in subsection (c) becomes operative only if the “bank sends or makes available a statement of account or items pursuant to subsection (a).“ A bank is not under a duty to send a statement of account or the paid items to the customer; but, if it does not do so, the customer does not have any duties under subsection (c).
Under subsection (a), a statement of account must provide information “sufficient to allow the customer reasonably to identify the items paid.“ If the bank supplies its customer with an image of the paid item, it complies with this standard. But a safe harbor rule is provided. The bank complies with the standard of providing “sufficient information” if “the item is described by item number, amount, and date of payment.“ This means that the customer’s duties under subsection (c) are triggered if the bank sends a statement of account complying with the safe harbor rule without returning the paid items. A bank does not have to return the paid items unless it has agreed with the customer to do so. Whether there is such an agreement depends upon the particular circumstances. See Section 1-201(3). If the bank elects to provide the minimum information that is “sufficient” under subsection (a) and, as a consequence, the customer could not “reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment,” there is no preclusion under subsection (d). If the customer made a record of the issued checks on the check stub or carbonized copies furnished by the bank in the checkbook, the customer should usually be able to verify the paid items shown on the statement of account and discover any unauthorized or altered checks. But there could be exceptional circumstances. For example, if a check is altered by changing the name of the payee, the customer could not normally detect the fraud unless the customer is given the paid check or the statement of account discloses the name of the payee of the altered check. If the customer could not “reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment“ under subsection (c) there would not be a preclusion under subsection (d).
The safe harbor provided by subsection (a) serves to permit a bank, based on the state of existing technology, to trigger the customer’s duties under subsection (c) by providing a “statement of account showing payment of items” without having to return the paid items, in any case in which the bank has not agreed with the customer to return the paid items. The safe harbor does not, however, preclude a customer under subsection (d) from asserting its unauthorized signature or an alteration against a bank in those circumstances in which under subsection (c) the customer should not “reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment.” Whether the customer has failed to comply with its duties under subsection (c) is determined on a case-by-case basis.
The provision in subsection (a) that a statement of account contains “sufficient information if the item is described by item number, amount, and date of payment“ is based upon the existing state of technology. This information was chosen because it can be obtained by the bank’s computer from the check’s MICR line without examination of the items involved. The other two items of information that the customer would normally want to know—the name of the payee and the date of the item—cannot currently be obtained from the MICR line. The safe harbor rule is important in determining the feasibility of payor or collecting bank check retention plans. A customer who keeps a record of checks written, e.g., on the check stubs or carbonized copies of the checks supplied by the bank in the checkbook, will usually have sufficient information to identify the items on the basis of item number, amount, and date of payment. But customers who do not utilize these record-keeping methods may not. The policy decision is that accommodating customers who do not keep adequate records is not as desirable as accommodating customers who keep more careful records. This policy results in less cost to the check collection system and thus to all customers of the system. It is expected that technological advances such as image processing may make it possible for banks to give customers more information in the future in a manner that is fully compatible with automation or truncation systems. At that time the Permanent Editorial Board may wish to make recommendations for an amendment revising the safe harbor requirements in the light of those advances.
2. Subsection (d) states the consequences of a failure by the customer to perform its duty under subsection (c) to report an alteration or the customer’s unauthorized signature. Subsection (d)(1) applies to the unauthorized payment of the item to which the duty to report under subsection (c) applies. If the bank proves that the customer “should reasonably have discovered the unauthorized payment“ (See Comment 1) and did not notify the bank, the customer is precluded from asserting against the bank the alteration or the customer’s unauthorized signature if the bank proves that it suffered a loss as a result of the failure of the customer to perform its subsection (c) duty. Subsection (d)(2) applies to cases in which the customer fails to report an unauthorized signature or alteration with respect to an item in breach of the subsection (c) duty (See Comment 1) and the bank subsequently pays other items of the customer with respect to which there is an alteration or unauthorized signature of the customer and the same wrongdoer is involved. If the payment of the subsequent items occurred after the customer has had a reasonable time (not exceeding 30 days) to report with respect to the first item and before the bank received notice of the unauthorized signature or alteration of the first item, the customer is precluded from asserting the alteration or unauthorized signature with respect to the subsequent items.
If the customer is precluded in a single or multiple item unauthorized payment situation under subsection (d), but the customer proves that the bank failed to exercise ordinary care in paying the item or items and that the failure substantially contributed to the loss, subsection (e) provides a comparative negligence test for allocating loss between the customer and the bank. Subsection (e) also states that, if the customer proves that the bank did not pay the item in good faith, the preclusion under subsection (d) does not apply.
Subsection (d)(2) changes former subsection (2)(b) by adopting a 30-day period in place of a 14-day period. Although the 14-day period may have been sufficient when the original version of Article 4 was drafted in the 1950s, given the much greater volume of checks at the time of the revision, a longer period was viewed as more appropriate. The rule of subsection (d)(2) follows pre-Code case law that payment of an additional item or items bearing an unauthorized signature or alteration by the same wrongdoer is a loss suffered by the bank traceable to the customer’s failure to exercise reasonable care (See Comment 1) in examining the statement and notifying the bank of objections to it. One of the most serious consequences of failure of the customer to comply with the requirements of subsection (c) is the opportunity presented to the wrongdoer to repeat the misdeeds. Conversely, one of the best ways to keep down losses in this type of situation is for the customer to promptly examine the statement and notify the bank of an unauthorized signature or alteration so that the bank will be alerted to stop paying further items. Hence, the rule of subsection (d)(2) is prescribed, and to avoid dispute a specific time limit, 30 days, is designated for cases to which the subsection applies. These considerations are not present if there are no losses resulting from the payment of additional items. In these circumstances, a reasonable period for the customer to comply with its duties under subsection (c) would depend on the circumstances ( Section 1-204(2)) and the subsection (d)(2) time limit should not be imported by analogy into subsection (c).
3. Subsection (b) applies if the items are not returned to the customer. Check retention plans may include a simple payor bank check retention plan or the kind of check retention plan that would be authorized by a truncation agreement in which a collecting bank or the payee may retain the items. Even after agreeing to a check retention plan, a customer may need to see one or more checks for litigation or other purposes. The customer’s request for the check may always be made to the payor bank. Under subsection (b) retaining banks may destroy items but must maintain the capacity to furnish legible copies for seven years. A legible copy may include an image of an item. This Act does not define the length of the reasonable period of time for a bank to provide the check or copy of the check. What is reasonable depends on the capacity of the bank and the needs of the customer. This Act does not specify sanctions for failure to retain or furnish the items or legible copies; this is left to other laws regulating banks. See Comment 3 to Section 4-101. Moreover, this Act does not regulate fees that banks charge their customers for furnishing items or copies or other services covered by the Act, but under principles of law such as unconscionability or good faith and fair dealing, courts have reviewed fees and the bank’s exercise of a discretion to set fees. Perdue v. Crocker National Bank, 38 Cal.3d 913 (1985) (unconscionability); Best v. United Bank of Oregon, 739 P.2d 554, 562-566 (1987) (good faith and fair dealing). In addition, Section 1-203 provides that every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
4. Subsection (e) replaces former subsection (3) and poses a modified comparative negligence test for determining liability. See the discussion on this point in the Comments to Sections 3-404, 3-405, and 3-406. The term “good faith” is defined in Section 3-103(a)(4) as including “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” The connotation of this standard is fairness and not absence of negligence.
The term “ordinary care” used in subsection (e) is defined in Section 3-103(a)(7), made applicable to Article 4 by Section 4-104(c), to provide that sight examination by a payor bank is not required if its procedure is reasonable and is commonly followed by other comparable banks in the area. The case law is divided on this issue. The definition of “ordinary care” in Section 3-103 rejects those authorities that hold, in effect, that failure to use sight examination is negligence as a matter of law. The effect of the definition of “ordinary care” on Section 4-406 is only to provide that in the small percentage of cases in which a customer’s failure to examine its statement or returned items has led to loss under subsection (d) a bank should not have to share that loss solely because it has adopted an automated collection or payment procedure in order to deal with the great volume of items at a lower cost to all customers.
5. Several changes are made in former Section 4-406(5). First, former subsection (5) is deleted and its substance is made applicable only to the one-year notice preclusion in former subsection (4) (subsection (f)). Thus if a drawer has not notified the payor bank of an unauthorized check or material alteration within the one-year period, the payor bank may not choose to recredit the drawer’s account and pass the loss to the collecting banks on the theory of breach of warranty. Second, the reference in former subsection (4) to unauthorized indorsements is deleted. Section 4-406 imposes no duties on the drawer to look for unauthorized indorsements. Section 4-111 sets out a statute of limitations allowing a customer a three-year period to seek a credit to an account improperly charged by payment of an item bearing an unauthorized indorsement. Third, subsection (c) is added to Section 4-208 to assure that if a depositary bank is sued for breach of a presentment warranty, it can defend by showing that the drawer is precluded by Section 3-406 or Section 4-406(c) and (d). Revisions approved by the Permanent Editorial Board for the Uniform Commercial Code, March 16, 1991.
Reason for 1990 Change [D.C. Law 10-249 ]
Subsection (a), (b) and (c) restate and enlarge on former subsection (1). Subsection (a) recognizes that the parties may agree that the payor, a collecting bank or other person may retain the items drawn on the customer’s account. In these cases the payor bank must provide sufficient information in a statement of account to allow the customer to reasonably identify the items paid. A safe harbor rule is stated that provides that the payor bank has satisfied its obligation if the item is described by item number, amount and the date of payment. This information is selected because it can be captured by the payor bank by automation without manual processing of the item.
Subsection (b) allows the bank retaining the item to destroy the item so long as it maintains the capacity to furnish legible copies for seven years. During this period the customer is entitled to demand from its payor bank the item or a copy of it. If the item is being retained by a collecting bank or other person, the payor bank must obtain the item or copy from that bank for its customer.
Subsection (c) continues the rule of former subsection (1) of requiring the customer to exercise reasonable promptness in examining the statement or items for an unauthorized signature of the customer or an alteration and to notify the bank promptly.
Subsection (d)(2) restates the conditions of the customer’s preclusion and extends the 14-day period under former subsection (2) to a 30-day period. Although the 14-day period may have been sufficient when the original version of Article 4 was drafted, given the huge increase in the volume of checks, a longer period is viewed as more appropriate today.
Subsection (e) replaces former subsection (3) and poses a modified comparative negligence test for determining liability. See the discussion on this point in the Official Comments to Sections 3-404, 3-405 and 3-406. The term “good faith” is defined in Section 3-103(a)(4) as including “observance of reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.” The connotation of this standard is fairness and not absence of negligence. The term “ordinary care” used in subsection (e) is defined in Section 3-103(a)(7) to provide that sight examination by a payor bank is not required if its procedure is reasonable and is commonly followed by other comparable banks in the area. The case law is divided on this issue. The definition of “ordinary care” in Section 3-103 rejects those authorities that hold, in effect, that failure to use sight examination is negligence as a matter of law.
Subsection (f) amends former subsection (4) to delete the reference to a three-year period to discover an unauthorized indorsement. Section 4-406 imposes no duty on a customer to discover a forged indorsement. Section 4-111 sets out a statute of limitations allowing a customer a three-year period to seek a credit to an account improperly charged by payment of an item bearing an unauthorized indorsement. The final sentence added to subsection (f) incorporates the substance of former subsection (5).
The other modifications are made to conform with current legislative drafting practices, with no intent to change substance.
