CO Code § 4-4-214 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 4 - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4 - Bank Deposits and Collections|Part 2 - Collection of Items - Depositary and Collecting Banks|§ 4-4-214. Right of Charge-Back or Refund - Liability of Collecting Bank - Return of Item

  If a collecting bank has made provisional settlement with its customer for an item and fails by reason of dishonor, suspension of payments by a bank, or otherwise to receive a settlement for the item which is or becomes final, the bank may revoke the settlement given by it, charge-back the amount of any credit given for the item to its customer's account, or obtain refund from its customer, whether or not it is able to return the item, if, by its midnight deadline or within a longer reasonable time after it learns the facts, it returns the item or sends notification of the facts. If the return or notice is delayed beyond the bank's midnight deadline or a longer reasonable time after it learns the facts, the bank may revoke the settlement, charge back the credit, or obtain refund from its customer, but it is liable for any loss resulting from the delay. These rights to revoke, charge back, and obtain refund terminate if and when a settlement for the item received by the bank is or becomes final.    A collecting bank returns an item when it is sent or delivered to the bank's customer or transferor or pursuant to its instructions.    A depositary bank that is also the payor may charge back the amount of an item to its customer's account or obtain refund in accordance with the section governing return of an item received by a payor bank for credit on its books (section 4-4-301).    The right to charge back is not affected by:   Previous use of a credit given for the item; or    Failure by any bank to exercise ordinary care with respect to the item, but a bank so failing remains liable.       A failure to charge back or claim refund does not affect other rights of the bank against the customer or any other party.    If credit is given in dollars as the equivalent of the value of an item payable in a foreign money, the dollar amount of any charge-back or refund must be calculated on the basis of the bank-offered spot rate for the foreign money prevailing on the day when the person entitled to the charge-back or refund learns that it will not receive payment in ordinary course.     History. Source: L. 94: Entire article amended with relocations, p. 894, § 2, effective January 1, 1995.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 4-4-212 as it existed prior to 1994, and the former § 4-4-214 was relocated to § 4-4-216 .   OFFICIAL COMMENT   1. Under current bank practice, in a major portion of cases banks make provisional settlement for items when they are first received and then await subsequent determination of whether the item will be finally paid. This is the principal characteristic of what are referred to in banking parlance as “cash items.” Statistically, this practice of settling provisionally first and then awaiting final payment is justified because the vast majority of such cash items are finally paid, with the result that in this great preponderance of cases it becomes unnecessary for the banks making the provisional settlements to make any further entries. In due course the provisional settlements become final simply with the lapse of time. However, in those cases in which the item being collected is not finally paid or if for various reasons the bank making the provisional settlement does not itself receive final payment, provision is made in subsection (a) for the reversal of the provisional settlements, charge-back of provisional credits and the right to obtain refund.   2. Various causes of a bank's not receiving final payment, with the resulting right of charge-back or refund, are stated or suggested in subsection (a). These include dishonor of the original item; dishonor of a remittance instrument given for it; reversal of a provisional credit for the item; suspension of payments by another bank. The causes stated are illustrative; the right of charge-back or refund is stated to exist whether the failure to receive final payment in ordinary course arises through one of them “or otherwise.”   3. The right of charge-back or refund exists if a collecting bank has made a provisional settlement for an item with its customer but terminates if and when a settlement received by the bank for the item is or becomes final. If the bank fails to receive such a final settlement the right of charge-back or refund must be exercised promptly after the bank learns the facts. The right exists (if so promptly exercised) whether or not the bank is able to return the item. The second sentence of subsection (a) adopts the view of Appliance Buyers Credit Corp. v. Prospect National Bank, 708 F.2d 290 (7th Cir. 1983), that if the midnight deadline for returning an item or giving notice is not met, a collecting bank loses its rights only to the extent of damages for any loss resulting from the delay.   4. Subsection (b) states when an item is returned by a collecting bank. Regulation CC, Section 229.31 preempts this subsection with respect to checks by allowing direct return to the depositary bank. Because a returned check may follow a different path than in forward collection, settlement given for the check is final and not provisional except as between the depositary bank and its customer. Regulation CC Section 229.36(d). See also Regulations CC Sections 229.31(c) and 229.32(b). Thus owing to the federal preemption, this subsection applies only to noncheck items.   5. The rule of subsection (d) relating to charge-back (as distinguished from claim for refund) applies irrespective of the cause of the nonpayment, and of the person ultimately liable for nonpayment. Thus charge-back is permitted even if nonpayment results from the depositary bank's own negligence. Any other rule would result in litigation based upon a claim for wrongful dishonor of other checks of the customer, with potential damages far in excess of the amount of the item. Any other rule would require a bank to determine difficult questions of fact. The customer's protection is found in the general obligation of good faith (Sections 1-203 and 4-103). If bad faith is established the customer's recovery “includes other damages, if any, suffered by the party as a proximate consequence” (Section 4-103(e); see also Section 4-402).   6. It is clear that the charge-back does not relieve the bank from any liability for failure to exercise ordinary care in handling the item. The measure of damages for such failure is stated in Section 4-103(e).   7. Subsection (f) states a rule fixing the time for determining the rate of exchange if there is a charge-back or refund of a credit given in dollars for an item payable in a foreign currency. Compare Section 3-107. Fixing such a rule is desirable to avoid disputes. If in any case the parties wish to fix a different time for determining the rate of exchange, they may do so by agreement.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. The following annotations include cases decided under former provisions similar to this section.   Liability of indorser where estoppel created. While the principle that an indorser is liable on his warranty is correctly stated, the rule has no application when an estoppel has been created which would preclude plaintiff from obtaining a refund of the amount paid to defendant. First Nat'l Bank v. Ulibarri, 38 Colo. App. 428, 557 P.2d 1221 .   Where payor bank retains a demand item beyond its midnight deadline without settling it, nothing occurs to cause the provisional settlement between depositor and depositary bank to become final, and the depositary bank still has a right of refund from the depositor. Mercantile Bank Trust Co. v. Hunter, 31 Colo. App. 200, 501 P.2d 486 (1972).   When a depositary bank has made a provisional settlement for an item for its depositor but fails to receive final settlement from the payor bank, the depositary bank may revoke the provisional settlement and obtain a refund from the depositor. Mercantile Bank Trust Co. v. Hunter, 31 Colo. App. 200, 501 P.2d 486 (1972).   The bank's failure to make a formal protest is immaterial where one's liability is based not on his indorsement of a check, but on his status as depositor and withdrawer of funds. Mercantile Bank Trust Co. v. Hunter, 31 Colo. App. 200, 501 P.2d 486 (1972).