You are here: / Uniform Commercial Code
,

Question of Fact Whether Withdrawal Was Authorized, Despite Absence of Signature

The Second Department, over a dissent, determined the bank had raised a question of fact about whether a $50,000 withdrawal, where the withdrawal slip was not signed, was authorized. The assistant branch manager submitted an affidavit stating that he received authorization by phone from the account holder. The court explained the relevant analytical criteria:

Generally, an unauthorized signature—defined as a signature made without authority, including a forgery (see UCC 1-201[41])—is ineffective to pass title or authorize a drawee bank to pay … . The UCC imposes strict liability on a bank that charges against a customer’s account any item not properly payable, such as a check bearing a forgery of the customer’s signature (see UCC 4-401[2][a]; UCC 4-104[1][g], [j]…). A bank, however, avoids such liability if it demonstrates that the customer’s negligence substantially contributed to the forgery and that the bank acted in good faith and in accordance with reasonable commercial standards (see UCC 3-406 …). Proactive Dealer Servs., Inc. v TD Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 07016, 2nd Dept 9-30-15

 

,

Requirements for Preservation of Collateral (Security for a Promissory Note) Explained

In an action alleging the failure to preserve collateral which secured a promissory note, the Second Department determined summary judgment on the underlying promissory note should not have been granted because plaintiffs raised a question of fact about the commercial reasonableness of the handling of the collateral:

“Under both the common law and the Uniform Commercial Code, a secured party has a duty to exercise reasonable care in the custody and preservation of collateral in its possession. The obligation remains the same regardless of whether the secured party came into possession of the property before or after the debtor’s default” … .

“After default, a secured party may sell, lease, license or otherwise dispose of any or all of the collateral in its present condition or following any commercially reasonable preparation or processing” (UCC 9-610[a]). “Every aspect of a disposition of collateral, including the method, manner, time, place, and other terms, must be commercially reasonable” (UCC 9-610[b]). A secured party that disposes of collateral under section 9-610 is required to send to, among others, the debtor and any secondary obligor, notification of disposition (see UCC 9-611[b], [c]). Nugent v Hubbard, 2015 NY Slip Op 06226, 2nd Dept 7-22-15

 

,

14-Day Period for Notifying a Bank of Improperly Paid Items Reasonable Under the Facts

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Lippman, over a dissent, determined that shortening the period during which a bank must be informed of an improperly paid item from one year to 14 days was reasonable under the facts.  The court noted that the party which agreed to the shortened period was a sophisticated business entity and the shortened period may not be reasonable in other circumstances, with less sophisticated parties, for example. The improperly paid items in this case were checks and drawdown requests forged by an employee.  Summary judgment was granted in favor of the bank because the bank had not been notified of the forged items within 14 days:

[With respect] to the application of UCC 4-406 (4), the UCC permits parties to alter the provisions of article 4 by agreement (see UCC 4-103 [1]). The Official Comments go so far as to say that there exists a “blanket power to vary all provisions of the Article” (id. at Comment 2). But that power is not boundless:”[N]o agreement can disclaim a bank's responsibility for its own lack of good faith or failure to exercise ordinary care or can limit the measure of damages for such lack or failure; but the parties may by agreement determine the standards by which such responsibility is to be measured if such standards are not manifestly unreasonable”(UCC 4-103 [1]).

The application of these limitations raises two issues: first, whether parties can vary the one-year period by agreement; we hold that they can; and second, whether shortening the one-year period to 14 days is manifestly unreasonable; we hold that it is not, at least under these facts. Clemente Bros Contr Corp v Hafner-Milazzo, 2014 NY Slip Op 03291, CtApp 5-8-14

 

, ,

The “Strict Compliance” Rule Re: Documents Required for a Drawdown from a Letter of Credit Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that minor discrepancies in the documents required by a letter of credit as a prerequisite for a drawdown did not violate the “strict compliance” rule.  Here a true copy of a document, rather than the original, was submitted.  The true copy was deemed to satisfy the “strict compliance” rule:

…[A]pplying the standard of strict compliance, plaintiff’s drawdown request should have been honored because, under these circumstances, the production of a true copy of amendment 2, instead of an original, was sufficient even to satisfy the strict compliance standard.

Strict compliance has been said to require that “the papers, documents and shipping directions . . . be followed as stated in the letter [of credit],” that “[n]o substitution and no equivalent, through interpretation or logic, will serve,” and that “[t]here is no room for documents which are almost the same, or which will do just as well” … . Even slight discrepancies in compliance with the terms of a letter of credit have been held to justify refusal to pay … .

“The [strict compliance] rule finds justification in the bank’s role in the transaction being ministerial . . . and to require it to determine the substantiality of discrepancies would be inconsistent with its function” … . The “reason for the strict [compliance] rule is to protect the issuer from having to know the commercial impact of a discrepancy in the documents” … .

However, as this Court has recently observed, “According to the official UCC commentary, the strict compliance standard does not require that the documents presented by the beneficiary be exact in every detail” (BasicNet S.P.A v CFP Servs., Ltd., __ AD3d __, __, 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, [1st Dept 2015]) [summarized directly below]. The doctrine of strict compliance “does not mean slavish conformity to the terms of the letter of credit . . . [and] does not demand oppressive perfectionism” (id., quoting Official Comment 1, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62½, UCC 5-108 at 367). Ladenburg Thalmann & Co, Inc. v Signature Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 02224, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

, ,

Invoices Together with Purchase Orders Created an Agreement to a Reduced Sales-Contract Statute of Limitations

The Second Department determined the sales-contract statute of limitations was validly reduced from four years to one year by the terms of invoices:

While UCC 2-725(1) generally provides that a cause of action alleging breach of a sales contract must be commenced within four years after it has accrued, that provision also allows the parties to a sales contract to “reduce the period of limitation to not less than one year” (UCC 2-725[1]…). Here, the defendants met their initial burden by demonstrating that their invoices containing the one-year limitation period constituted an acceptance that, together with the plaintiff’s purchase order, was effective in forming a contract, and that the one-year limitation period, an additional term set forth in the invoices, was presumed to have become part of this contract between the parties unless one of the three exceptions in UCC 2-207(2) applied (see UCC 2-207[1], [2]…). It is undisputed that the plaintiff’s action was not commenced within one year from the alleged breach, as required by the additional term. The burden then shifted to the plaintiff, as the party opposing the inclusion of the additional term, to raise a question of fact as to whether one of the three exceptions under UCC 2-207(2) was applicable … . The plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the abbreviated period of limitation was not against public policy (see CPLR 201; UCC 2-725[1]…). ” Absent proof that the contract is one of adhesion or the product of overreaching, or that [the] altered period is unreasonably short, the abbreviated period of limitation will be enforced'” … . ” Where the party against which an abbreviated Statute of Limitations is sought to be enforced does not demonstrate duress, fraud, or misrepresentations in regard to its agreement to the shortened period, it is assumed that the term was voluntarily agreed to'” … . State of Narrow Fabric, Inc. v UNIFI, Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02110, 2nd Dept 3-18-15

 

, ,

(1) The Effect of Minor Discrepancies Re: the Submissions Required by a Standby Letter of Credit (SLC) (2) The Criteria for Interpreting an SLC (3) the Nature of an SLC and (4) the “Independence Principle” as Applied to an SLC Discussed in Some Depth

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, reversed Supreme Court and determined the issuer of standby letters of credit (SLC) was required to honor them.  The opinion is detailed and fact-based.  Among the legal issues discussed are: (1) minor discrepancies re: the documents required to be submitted (for a drawdown) by the terms of an SLC do not violate the “strict compliance” rule; (2) how to interpret an SLC; (3) the nature of an SLC  (versus a guaranty); and (4) the “Independence Principle” which requires that an SLC be deemed separate and distinct from the other contractual agreements underlying the transaction:

Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit … . “The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” … . The reasoning is that “[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are” … . “Where a letter of credit is fairly susceptible of two constructions, one of which makes fair, customary and one which prudent men would naturally enter into, while the other makes it inequitable, the former interpretation must be preferred to the latter, and a construction rendering the contract possible of performance will be preferred to one which renders its performance impossible or meaningless” … . * * *

There are three parties to an SLC: the applicant who requests the SLC; the beneficiary to whom payment is due upon the presentation of the documents required by the SLC; and the issuer which obligates itself to honor the SLC and make payment when presented with the documents the SLC requires. In turn, there are three corresponding agreements: the agreement between the applicant and the beneficiary, which creates the basis for the SLC; the agreement between the issuer and the applicant; and the SLC itself … .

“[A] fundamental principle governing these transactions is the doctrine of independent contracts, [which] provides that the issuing bank’s obligation to honor drafts drawn on a letter of credit by the beneficiary is separate and independent from any obligation of its customer to the beneficiary under the … contract and separate as well from any obligation of the issuer to its customer under their agreement” … .

From the beneficiary’s perspective, the independence principle makes a letter of credit superior to a normal surety bond or guaranty because the issuer is primarily liable and is precluded from asserting defenses that an ordinary guarantor could assert. Indeed, “a letter of credit would lose its commercial vitality if before honoring drafts the issuer could look beyond the terms of the credit to the underlying contractual controversy or performance between its customer and the beneficiary”… . BasicNet S.P.A. v CFP Servs. Ltd., 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, 1st Dept 3-17-15

 

, ,

Telephone-Communication Buy-Sell Arrangements Sufficient for Long-Arm Jurisdiction/Forum Selection Clause In Invoices Not Enforceable Pursuant to UCC 207

The First Department determined that telephone communications re: the sale of diamonds between a seller in New York and a buyer in California were a sufficient basis for New York's long-arm jurisdiction over the California defendant.  The court further found that the forum selection clause and consent to jurisdiction in the relevant invoices were additional terms which, pursuant to UCC 207, were never expressly agreed to and therefore not enforceable:

UCC § 2-207 contemplates situations like the one here, where parties do business through an exchange of forms such as purchase orders and invoices. As the parties did here, merchants frequently include terms in their forms that were not discussed with the other side. UCC § 2-207[2] addresses that scenario, providing, “[t]he additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless: … [b] they materially alter it.”

Here, during telephone discussions, the parties negotiated the essential terms required for contract formation, and the invoices were merely confirmatory … . Thus, the forum selection clause is an additional term that materially altered the parties' oral contracts, and defendant did not give its consent to that additional term … . …

… [T]he motion court erred in finding that the parties' telephone dealings over several years and in the two transactions at issue were insufficient as a matter of law to confer personal jurisdiction over defendant pursuant to CPLR 302(a)(1). CPLR 302(a)(1) authorizes the assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary who “transacts any business within the state or contracts anywhere to supply goods or services in the state.” CPLR 302(a)(1) is a “single act statute”; accordingly, physical presence is not required and one New York transaction is sufficient for personal jurisdiction. The statute applies where the defendant's New York activities were purposeful and substantially related to the claim … . ” Purposeful'” activities are defined as ” those with which a defendant, through volitional acts, avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws'” … .

We recognize that courts of this state have generally held telephone communications to be insufficient for finding purposeful activity conferring personal jurisdiction … . However, there are exceptions to this general rule, and in some cases, telephone communications will, in fact, be sufficient to confer jurisdiction … . C Mahendra NY LLC v National Gold & Diamond Ctr Inc, 2015 NY Slip Op 01157, 1st Dept 2-10-15

 

,

Bank Properly Reversed Wire Transfer to Plaintiff’s Account After Learning Payment Was Not Authorized by the Holder of the Account from Which the Money Was Transferred—Plaintiff, Which Had Provided the Fake Buyer with Products Ostensibly Purchased with the Funds Initially Transferred to Plaintiff’s Account, Was Not Entitled to Those Funds Because the Funds Had Been Properly Returned by the Defendant Banks Pursuant to the Wire-Transfer Provisions of the UCC

The Second Department determined summary judgment in favor of the defendant banks (TD Bank and Eastern Bank) was properly granted.  Plaintiff, Golden Door, sold watches worth $71,000 to a fake buyer after the money was wired from the ostensible buyer's (MHIC's) account at defendant Eastern Bank to plaintiff's account in defendant TD Bank.  It turned out that the wire transfer was the result of the “hacking” of ostensible buyer's account. When Eastern Bank was notified the buyer had not authorized the transfer, Eastern Bank notified TD Bank which then reversed the transfer of the $71,000. Plaintiff sued for the $71,000.  The Second Department found that, under the wire-transfer provisions of the UCC, plaintiff was not entitled to the $71,000:

Under Article 4-A, a funds transfer is initiated by a “payment order,” which is an instruction from the person making the payment (the “originator”), to a “receiving” or “intermediary” bank to transfer the funds to the bank account of the beneficiary, normally in the “beneficiary's bank” (UCC 4-A-103, 4-A-104). Here, MHIC was indicated as the originator, Eastern Bank was the receiving bank, Golden Door was the beneficiary, and TD Bank was the beneficiary's bank.

Under Article 4-A, “a beneficiary's bank accepts a payment order when the bank pays the beneficiary by crediting the beneficiary's account and notifying the beneficiary of the right to withdraw the credit” (…see UCC 4-A-209[a]; 4-A-405[1][i]). Once the beneficiary's bank accepts the payment order, a cancellation of the order is not effective unless the beneficiary's bank agrees and, as relevant here, the order was unauthorized in the first place (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b]…). “If the payment order is cancelled . . . the beneficiary's bank is entitled to recover from the beneficiary any amount paid to the beneficiary to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). Once cancelled, “the acceptance [of the payment order] is nullified and no person has any right or obligation based on the acceptance” (UCC 4-A-211[5], Comment 4, Case #1).

In support of their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, the defendants established prima facie that the cancellation of the payment order was effective. The defendants submitted evidence that TD Bank, the beneficiary's bank, agreed to the cancellation, and that MHIC had not authorized the transfer (see UCC 4-A-211[3][b], Comment 1). The defendants further established prima facie that TD Bank was authorized to recover payment from Golden Door in the amount of the cancelled transfer in accordance with the “law governing mistake and restitution” (UCC 4-A-211[3][b]). The applicable doctrine of restitution is the “discharge for value” rule. Under that rule, ” [a] creditor of another or one having a lien on another's property who has received from a third person any benefit in discharge of the debt or lien, is under no duty to make restitution therefor, although the discharge was given by mistake of the transferor as to his interests or duties, if the transferee made no misrepresentation and did not have notice of the transferor's mistake'” (…quoting Restatement of Restitution § 14[1]). Although Golden Door had made no misrepresentation, the defendants established that Golden Door had notice that the transfer from MHIC was given by “mistake,” or was unauthorized. Specifically, the transfer order indicated that the transferor was MHIC, which was not Golden Door's “customer,” was not indebted to Golden Door, and had no apparent relationship with it or its “customer” (see UCC 4-A-211, Comment 4, Cases #2-#4…). Accordingly, Golden Door could not, under the discharge for value rule, retain the funds that had been transferred into its account. In opposition to the defendants' prima facie showing, Golden Door failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Golden Door V & I Inc v TD Bank, 2014 NY Slip Op 08960, 2nd Dept 12-24-14


 

, , ,

Agreement to Pay over $500,000 (Re: Prior Loans Allegedly Made Over a Period Time) Not Enforceable Because the Agreement Did Not Express Any Consideration—Past Consideration Is No Consideration Because the Detriment Did Not Induce the Promise

The Second Department determined that an agreement to pay over $500,000, allegedly constituting the amount of past loans made over a period of time, was not enforceable because the agreement did not express any consideration.  However, the cause of action for monies had and received properly survived summary judgment:

The lack of consideration for a note is a bona fide defense to payment thereof … . Generally, past consideration is no consideration and cannot support an agreement because “the detriment did not induce the promise” … . That is, “since the detriment had already been incurred, it cannot be said to have been bargained for in exchange for the promise” … . However, a “promise in writing and signed by the promisor or by his agent shall not be denied effect as a valid contractual obligation on the ground that consideration for the promise is past or executed, if the consideration is expressed in the writing and is proved to have been given or performed and would be a valid consideration but for the time when it was given or performed” (General Obligations Law § 5-1105 [emphasis added]).

Here, as indicated, the agreement did not express any consideration. Thus, it is not enforceable as a promissory note or as a contract (see General Obligations Law § 5-1105; Uniform Commercial Code § 3-104[1][a]-[d]; [2][d…). Samet v Binson, 2014 NY Slip Op -7643, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, ,

All Ambiguities Re: Letters of Credit Resolved Against the Issuer—“Independence Principle” Applied—Beneficiaries of Letters of Credit Entitled to Payment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Andrias, the First Department reversed Supreme Court and determined plaintiffs were entitled to payment as beneficiaires of irrevocable standby letters of credit.  The opinion is detailed and meticulously resolved all ambiguities in the relevant documents against the issuer of the letters of credit.  The opinion includes an extended discussion of the “independence principle” in this context.  With respect to the basic analytical principles to be applied, the court wrote:

Under New York law, in order to recover on its claim that the issuer wrongfully refused to honor its request to draw down on a letter of credit, the beneficiary must prove that it strictly complied with the terms of the letter of credit … . “The corollary to the rule of strict compliance is that the requirements in letters of credit must be explicit, and that all ambiguities are construed against the [issuer]” … . The reasoning is that “[s]ince the beneficiary must comply strictly with the requirements of the letter, it must know precisely and unequivocally what those requirements are” … . “Where a letter of credit is fairly susceptible of two constructions, one of which makes it fair, customary and one which prudent men would naturally enter into, while the other makes it inequitable, the former interpretation must be preferred to the latter, and a construction rendering the contract possible of performance will be preferred to one which renders its performance impossible or meaningless” … . * * *

In November 2000, the independence principle was codified in a general revision of article 5 of the UCC. UCC 5—103(d) now provides that:

“[r]ights and obligations of an issuer to a beneficiary or a nominated person under a letter of credit are independent of the existence, performance, or nonperformance of a contract or arrangement out of which the letter of credit arises or which underlies it, including contracts or arrangements between the issuer and the applicant and between the applicant and the beneficiary.”

The doctrine of independent contracts, as codified in UCC article 5, allows the letter of credit to provide ” a quick, economic and trustworthy means of financing transactions for parties not willing to deal on open accounts'”… . “Only staunch recognition of this principle by the issuers and the courts will give letters of credit the continuing vitality that arises from the certainty and speed of payment under letters of credit” … .BasicNet SpA v CFP Servs Ltd, 2014 NY Slip Op 04585, 1st Dept 6-19-14

 

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy