reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
DC Code § 28:4A-202 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-202. Authorized and verified payment orders

(a) A payment order received by the receiving bank is the authorized order of the person identified as sender if that person authorized the order or is otherwise bound by it under the law of agency. (b) If a bank and its customer have agreed that the authenticity of payment orders issued to the bank in the name of the customer as sender will be verified pursuant to a security procedure, a payment order received by the receiving bank is effective as the order of the customer, whether or not authorized, if (i) the security procedure is a commercially reasonable method of providing security against unauthorized payment orders, and (ii) the bank proves that it accepted the payment order in good faith and in compliance with the security procedure and any written agreement or instruction of the customer restricting acceptance of payment orders issued in the name of the customer. The bank is not required to follow an instruction that violates a written agreement with the customer or notice of which is not received at a time and in a manner affording the bank a reasonable opportunity to act on it before the payment order is accepted. (c) Commercial reasonableness of a security procedure is a question of law to be determined by considering the wishes of the customer expressed to the bank, the circumstances of the customer known to the bank, including the size, type, and frequency of payment orders normally issued by the customer to the bank, alternative security procedures offered to the customer, and security procedures in general use by customers and receiving banks similarly situated. A security procedure is deemed to be commercially reasonable if (i) the security procedure was chosen by the customer after the bank offered, and the customer refused, a security procedure that was commercially reasonable for that customer, and (ii) the customer expressly agreed in writing to be bound by any payment order, whether or not authorized, issued in its name and accepted by the bank in compliance with the security procedure chosen by the customer. (d) The term “sender” in this article includes the customer in whose name a payment order is issued if the order is the authorized order of the customer under subsection (a) of this section, or it is effective as the order of the customer under subsection (b) of this section. (e) This section applies to amendments and cancellations of payment orders to the same extent it applies to payment orders. (f) Except as provided in this section and in § 28:4A-203(a)(1), rights and obligations arising under this section or § 28:4A-203 may not be varied by agreement.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-202. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:4A-203 and § 28:4A-204. Uniform Commercial Code Comment This section is discussed in the Comment following Section 4A-203.
DC Code § 28:4A-212 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-212. Liability and duty of receiving bank regarding unaccepted payment order

If a receiving bank fails to accept a payment order that it is obliged by express agreement to accept, the bank is liable for breach of the agreement to the extent provided in the agreement or in this article, but does not otherwise have any duty to accept a payment order or, before acceptance, to take any action, or refrain from taking action, with respect to the order except as provided in this article or by express agreement. Liability based on acceptance arises only when acceptance occurs as stated in § 28:4A-209, and liability is limited to that provided in this article. A receiving bank is not the agent of the sender or beneficiary of the payment order it accepts, or of any other party to the funds transfer, and the bank owes no duty to any party to the funds transfer except as provided in this article or by express agreement.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-212. Uniform Commercial Code Comment With limited exceptions stated in this Article, the duties and obligations of receiving banks that carry out a funds transfer arise only as a result of acceptance of payment orders or of agreements made by receiving banks. Exceptions are stated in Section 4A-209(b)(3) and Section 4A-210(b). A receiving bank is not like a collecting bank under Article 4. No receiving bank, whether it be an originator’s bank, an intermediary bank or a beneficiary’s bank, is an agent for any other party in the funds transfer.  Part 3.   Execution of Sender’s Payment Order by Receiving Bank.
DC Code § 28:4A-304 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-304. Duty of sender to report erroneously executed payment order

If the sender of a payment order that is erroneously executed as stated in § 28:4A-303 receives notification from the receiving bank that the order was executed or that the sender’s account was debited with respect to the order, the sender has a duty to exercise ordinary care to determine, on the basis of information available to the sender, that the order was erroneously executed and to notify the bank of the relevant facts within a reasonable time not exceeding 90 days after the notification from the bank was received by the sender. If the sender fails to perform that duty, the bank is not obliged to pay interest on any amount refundable to the sender under § 28:4A-402(d) for the period before the bank learns of the execution error. The bank is not entitled to any recovery from the sender on account of a failure by the sender to perform the duty stated in this section.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-304. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:4A-402. Uniform Commercial Code Comment This section is identical in effect to Section 4A-204 which applies to unauthorized orders issued in the name of a customer of the receiving bank. The rationale is stated in Comment 2 to Section 4A-204.
DC Code § 28:4A-401 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-401. Payment date

“Payment date” of a payment order means the day on which the amount of the order is payable to the beneficiary by the beneficiary’s bank. The payment date may be determined by instruction of the sender but cannot be earlier than the day the order is received by the beneficiary’s bank and, unless otherwise determined, is the day the order is received by the beneficiary’s bank.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-401. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:4A-105. Uniform Commercial Code Comment “Payment date” refers to the day the beneficiary’s bank is to pay the beneficiary. The payment date may be expressed in various ways so long as it indicates the day the beneficiary is to receive payment. For example, in ACH transfers the payment date is the equivalent of “settlement date” or “effective date.” Payment date applies to the payment order issued to the beneficiary’s bank, but a payment order issued to a receiving bank other than the beneficiary’s bank may also state a date for payment to the beneficiary. In the latter case, the statement of a payment date is to instruct the receiving bank concerning time of execution of the sender’s order. Section 4A-301(b).
DC Code § 28:4A-503 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-503. Injunction or restraining order with respect to funds transfer

For proper cause and in compliance with applicable law, a court may restrain (i) a person from issuing a payment order to initiate a funds transfer, (ii) an originator’s bank from executing the payment order of the originator, or (iii) the beneficiary’s bank from releasing funds to the beneficiary or the beneficiary from withdrawing the funds. A court may not otherwise restrain a person from issuing a payment order, paying or receiving payment of a payment order, or otherwise acting with respect to a funds transfer.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-503. Uniform Commercial Code Comment This section is related to Section 4A-502(d) and to Comment 4 to Section 4A-502. It is designed to prevent interruption of a funds transfer after it has been set in motion. The initiation of a funds transfer can be prevented by enjoining the originator or the originator’s bank from issuing a payment order. After the funds transfer is completed by acceptance of a payment order by the beneficiary’s bank, that bank can be enjoined from releasing funds to the beneficiary or the beneficiary can be enjoined from withdrawing the funds. No other injunction is permitted. In particular, intermediary banks are protected, and injunctions against the originator and the originator’s bank are limited to issuance of a payment order. Except for the beneficiary’s bank, nobody can be enjoined from paying a payment order, and no receiving bank can be enjoined from receiving payment from the sender of the order that it accepted.
DC Code § 28:4A-504 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-504. Order in which items and payment orders may be charged to account; order of withdrawals from account

(a) If a receiving bank has received more than one payment order of the sender or one or more payment orders and other items that are payable from the sender’s account, the bank may charge the sender’s account with respect to the various orders and items in any sequence. (b) In determining whether a credit to an account has been withdrawn by the holder of the account or applied to a debt of the holder of the account, credits first made to the account are first withdrawn or applied.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-504. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Subsection (a) concerns priority among various obligations that are to be paid from the same account. A customer may have written checks on its account with the receiving bank and may have issued one or more payment orders payable from the same account. If the account balance is not sufficient to cover all of the checks and payment orders, some checks may be dishonored and some payment orders may not be accepted. Although there is no concept of wrongful dishonor of a payment order in Article 4A in the absence of an agreement to honor by the receiving bank, some rights and obligations may depend on the amount in the customer’s account. Section 4A-209(b)(3) and Section 4A-210(b). Whether dishonor of a check is wrongful also may depend upon the balance in the customer’s account. Under subsection (a), the bank is not required to consider the competing items and payment orders in any particular order. Rather it may charge the customer’s account for the various items and orders in any order. Suppose there is $12,000 in the customer’s account. If a check for $5,000 is presented for payment and the bank receives a $10,000 payment order from the customer, the bank could dishonor the check and accept the payment order. Dishonor of the check is not wrongful because the account balance was less than the amount of the check after the bank charged the account $10,000 on account of the payment order. Or, the bank could pay the check and not execute the payment order because the amount of the order is not covered by the balance in the account. 2. Subsection (b) follows Section 4-208(b) in using the first-in-first-out rule for determining the order in which credits to an account are withdrawn.
DC Code § 28:4A-505 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 4A - Funds Transfers|Part 1 - Subject Matter and Definitions|§ 28:4A-505. Preclusion of objection to debit of customer’s account

If a receiving bank has received payment from its customer with respect to a payment order issued in the name of the customer as sender and accepted by the bank, and the customer received notification reasonably identifying the order, the customer is precluded from asserting that the bank is not entitled to retain the payment unless the customer notifies the bank of the customer’s objection to the payment within one year after the notification was received by the customer.  (Apr. 30, 1992, D.C. Law 9-95, § 2(c), 39 DCR 1595.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:4A-505. Uniform Commercial Code Comment This section is in the nature of a statute of repose for objecting to debits made to the customer’s account. A receiving bank that executes payment orders of a customer may have received payment from the customer by debiting the customer’s account with respect to a payment order that the customer was not required to pay. For example, the payment order may not have been authorized or verified pursuant to Section 4A-202 or the funds transfer may not have been completed. In either case the receiving bank is obliged to refund the payment to the customer and this obligation to refund payment cannot be varied by agreement. Section 4A-204 and Section 4A-402. Refund may also be required if the receiving bank is not entitled to payment from the customer because the bank erroneously executed a payment order. Section 4A-303. A similar analysis applies to that case. Section 4A-402(d) and (f) require refund and the obligation to refund may not be varied by agreement. Under 4A-505, however, the obligation to refund may not be asserted by the customer if the customer has not objected to the debiting of the account within one year after the customer received notification of the debit.
DC Code § 28:7-201 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 7 - Documents of Title|Part 1 - General|§ 28:7-201. Person that may issue a warehouse receipt; storage under bond

(a) A warehouse receipt may be issued by any warehouse. (b) If goods, including distilled spirits and agricultural commodities, are stored under a statute requiring a bond against withdrawal or a license for the issuance of receipts in the nature of warehouse receipts, a receipt issued for the goods is deemed to be a warehouse receipt even if issued by a person that is the owner of the goods and is not a warehouse.  (Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-201. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-201. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:9-102. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 1, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act. Changes: Provision added to cover storage under government bond or under licensing statute. Purposes: It is not intended by reenactment of subsection (1) to repeal any provisions of special licensing or other statutes regulating who may become a warehouseman. See Section 10-103. Subsection (2) covers receipts issued by the owner for whiskey or other goods stored in bonded warehouses under such statutes as 26 U.S.C. Chapter 26. Limitations on the transfer of the receipts and criminal sanctions for violation of such limitations are not impaired. Section 7-103. Compare Section 7-401(d) on the liability of the issuer in such cases. Cross References:Sections 7-103, 7-401, 10-103. Definitional Cross References: “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201. “Warehouseman”. Section 7-102. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-201. Changes: Update for style only. Purposes: It is not intended by re-enactment of subsection (a) to repeal any provisions of special licensing or other statutes regulating who may become a warehouse. Limitations on the transfer of the receipts and criminal sanctions for violation of such limitations are not impaired. Section 7-103. Compare Section 7-401(4) on the liability of the issuer in such cases. Subsection (b) covers receipts issued by the owner for whiskey or other goods stored in bonded warehouses under such statutes as 26 U.S.C. Chapter 51. Cross References:Sections 7-103, 7-401. Definitional Cross References: “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201. “Warehouse”. Section 7-102.
DC Code § 28:7-203 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 7 - Documents of Title|Part 1 - General|§ 28:7-203. Liability for nonreceipt or misdescription

A party to or purchaser for value in good faith of a document of title, other than a bill of lading, that relies upon the description of the goods in the document may recover from the issuer damages caused by the nonreceipt or misdescription of the goods, except to the extent that: (1) The document conspicuously indicates that the issuer does not know whether all or part of the goods in fact were received or conform to the description, such as a case in which the description is in terms of marks or labels or kind, quantity, or condition, or the receipt or description is qualified by “contents, condition, and quality unknown”, “said to contain”, or words of similar import, if the indication is true; or (2) The party or purchaser otherwise has notice of the nonreceipt or misdescription.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 720, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-203. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-203. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 20, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act. Changes: New section confined to problem of non-receipt and misdescription. Purposes of Changes and New Matter: This section is a simplified restatement of existing law as to the method by which a bailee may avoid responsibility for the accuracy of descriptions which are made by or in reliance upon information furnished by the depositor. The issuer is liable on documents issued by an agent, contrary to instructions of his principal, without receiving goods. No disclaimer of the latter liability is permitted. Cross References:Sections 7-301 and 7-203. Definitional Cross References: “Conspicuous”. Section 1-201. “Document”. Section 7-102. “Document of title”. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Issuer”. Section 7-102. “Notice”. Section 1-201. “Party”. Section 1-201. “Purchaser”. Section 1-201. “Receipt of goods”. Section 2-103. “Value”. Section 1-201. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-203. Changes: Changes to this section are for style only. Purpose: This section is a simplified restatement of existing law as to the method by which a bailee may avoid responsibility for the accuracy of descriptions which are made by or in reliance upon information furnished by the depositor. The issuer is liable on documents issued by an agent, contrary to instructions of its principal, without receiving goods. No disclaimer of the latter liability is permitted. Cross Reference:Section 7-301. Definitional Cross References: “Conspicuous”. Section 1-201. “Document of title”. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Good Faith”. Section 1-201 [7-102]. “Issuer”. Section 7-102. “Notice”. Section 1-202. “Party”. Section 1-201. “Purchaser”. Section 1-201. “Receipt of goods”. Section 2-103. “Value”. Section 1-204.
DC Code § 28:7-207 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 7 - Documents of Title|Part 1 - General|§ 28:7-207. Goods must be kept separate; fungible goods

(a) Unless the warehouse receipt provides otherwise, a warehouse shall keep separate the goods covered by each receipt so as to permit at all times identification and delivery of those goods. However, different lots of fungible goods may be commingled. (b) If different lots of fungible goods are commingled, the goods are owned in common by the persons entitled thereto and the warehouse is severally liable to each owner for that owner’s share. If, because of overissue, a mass of fungible goods is insufficient to meet all the receipts the warehouse has issued against it, the persons entitled to the fungible goods include all holders to which overissued receipts have been duly negotiated.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 721, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-207. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-207. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Sections 22, 23 and 24, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act. Changes: Consolidated and revised; holders of overissued receipts permitted to share in mass of fungible goods. Purposes of Changes: No change of substance is made other than the explicit statement that holders to whom overissued receipts have been duly negotiated shall share in a mass of fungible goods. Where individual ownership interests are merged into claims on a common fund, as is necessarily the case with fungible goods, there is no policy reason for discriminating between successive purchasers of similar claims. Definitional Cross References: “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Duly negotiate”. Section 7-501. “Fungible” goods. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Holder”. Section 1-201. “Person”. Section 1-201. “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201. “Warehouseman”. Section 7-102. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-207. Changes: Changes for style only. Purposes: No change of substance is made from former Section 7-207. Holders to whom overissued receipts have been duly negotiated shall share in a mass of fungible goods. Where individual ownership interests are merged into claims on a common fund, as is necessarily the case with fungible goods, there is no policy reason for discriminating between successive purchasers of similar claims. Definitional Cross References: “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Duly negotiate”. Section 7-501. “Fungible goods”. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Holder”. Section 1-201. “Person”. Section 1-201. “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201. “Warehouse”. Section 7-102.