reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
DC Code § 28:7-208 (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|§ 28:7-208. Altered warehouse receipts

If a blank in a negotiable tangible warehouse receipt has been filled in without authority, a good-faith purchaser for value and without notice of the lack of authority may treat the insertion as authorized. Any other unauthorized alteration leaves any tangible or electronic warehouse receipt enforceable against the issuer according to its original tenor.  (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., § 28:7-208. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-208. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 13, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act. Changes: Generally revised and simplified; explicit treatment of the situation where a blank in an executed document is filled without authority. Purposes of Changes: 1. The execution of warehouse receipts in blank is a dangerous practice. As between the issuer and an innocent purchaser the risks should clearly fall on the former. 2. An unauthorized alteration whether made with or without fraudulent intent does not relieve the issuer of his liability on the warehouse receipt as originally executed. The unauthorized alteration itself is of course ineffective against the warehouseman. Definitional Cross References: “Issuer”. Section 7-102. “Notice”. Section 1-201. “Purchaser”. Section 1-201. “Value”. Section 1-201. “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-208. Changes: To accommodate electronic documents of title. Purpose: 1. The execution of tangible warehouse receipts in blank is a dangerous practice. As between the issuer and an innocent purchaser the risks should clearly fall on the former. The purchaser must have purchased the tangible negotiable warehouse receipt in good faith and for value to be protected under the rule of the first sentence which is a limited exception to the general rule in the second sentence. Electronic document of title systems should have protection against unauthorized access and unauthorized changes. See 7-106. Thus the protection for good faith purchasers found in the first sentence is not necessary in the context of electronic documents. 2. Under the second sentence of this section, an unauthorized alteration whether made with or without fraudulent intent does not relieve the issuer of its liability on the warehouse receipt as originally executed. The unauthorized alteration itself is of course ineffective against the warehouse. The rule stated in the second sentence applies to both tangible and electronic warehouse receipts. Definitional Cross References: “Good faith”. Section 1-201 [7-102]. “Issuer”. Section 7-102. “Notice”. Section 1-202. “Purchaser”. Section 1-201. “Value”. Section 1-204. “Warehouse receipt”. Section 1-201.
DC Code § 28:7-306 (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|§ 28:7-306. Altered bills of lading

An unauthorized alteration or filling in of a blank in a bill of lading leaves the bill enforceable according to its original tenor.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 725, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-306. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-306. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Section 16, Uniform Bills of Lading Act. Changes: Generally revised and simplified; explicit treatment of the situation where a blank in an executed document is filled without authority. Purposes of Changes: An unauthorized alteration whether made with or without fraudulent intent does not relieve the issuer of his liability on the document as originally executed. Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act 13 excused the issuer from any liability to a fraudulent alterer, other than the liability to deliver the goods according to the terms of the original document. It is difficult to conceive what liability the draftsman intended to excuse. Uniform Bills of Lading Act 16 contains no such excuse provision, and is followed in this respect in the present section. Uniform Bills of Lading Act 16 characterizes an unauthorized alteration as “void” but apparently nothing more was intended than that the alteration did not change the obligation of the issuer. This is sufficiently covered by the terms of this Section. Moreover cases are conceivable in which an alteration would not be “void”; for example, an alteration made by common consent of a transferor and transferee of a document might evidence an enforceable contract between them. The same rule is made applicable to the filling in of blanks, a matter on which the prior Acts were silent. Definitional Cross References: “Bill of lading”. Section 1-201. “Issuer”. Section 7-102. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-306. Changes: None Purposes: An unauthorized alteration or filling in of a blank, whether made with or without fraudulent intent, does not relieve the issuer of its liability on the document as originally executed. This section applies to both tangible and electronic bills of lading, applying the same rule to both types of bills of lading. The control concept of Section 7-106 requires that any changes to the electronic document of title be readily identifiable as authorized or unauthorized. Section 7-306 should be compared to Section 7-208 where a different rule applies to the unauthorized filling in of a blank for tangible warehouse receipts. Cross Reference:Sections 7-106 and 7-208. Definitional Cross References: “Bill of lading”. Section 1-201. “Issuer”. Section 7-102.
DC Code § 28:7-508 (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|§ 28:7-508. Warranties of collecting bank as to documents of title

A collecting bank or other intermediary known to be entrusted with documents of title on behalf of another or with collection of a draft or other claim against delivery of documents warrants by the delivery of the documents only its own good faith and authority even if the collecting bank or other intermediary has purchased or made advances against the claim or draft to be collected.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 730, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-508. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-508. Section References This section is referenced in § 28:7-507. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None. Purposes: 1. To state the limited warranties given with respect to the documents accompanying a documentary draft. 2. In warranting its authority a bank only warrants its authority from its transferor. See Section 4-203. It does not warrant the genuineness or effectiveness of the document. Compare Section 7-507. 3. Other duties and rights of banks handling documentary drafts for collection are stated in Article 4, Part 5. Cross References:Sections 4-203 and 7-507, 4-501 through 4-504. Definitional Cross References: “Collecting bank”. Section 4-105. “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Document”. Section 7-102. “Draft”. Section 5-103. “Good faith”. Section 1-201. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-508. Changes: Changes for style only. Purposes: 1. To state the limited warranties given with respect to the documents accompanying a documentary draft. 2. In warranting its authority a collecting bank or other intermediary only warrants its authority from its transferor. See Section 4-203. It does not warrant the genuineness or effectiveness of the document. Compare Section 7-507. 3. Other duties and rights of banks handling documentary drafts for collection are stated in Article 4, Part 5. On the meaning of draft, see Section 4-104 and Section 5-102, comment 11. Cross References:Sections 4-104, 4-203, 4-501 through 4-504, 5-102, and 7-507. Definitional Cross References: “Collecting bank”. Section 4-105. “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Document of title”. Section 1-102. “Documentary draft”. Section 4-104. “Intermediary bank”. Section 4-105. “Good faith”. Section 1-201 [7-102].
DC Code § 28:7-509 (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|§ 28:7-509. Adequate compliance with commercial contract

Whether a document of title is adequate to fulfill the obligations of a contract for sale, a contract for lease, or the conditions of a letter of credit is determined by Article 2, 2A, or 5.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 730, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-509. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-509. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None. Purposes: To cross-refer to the Articles of this Act which deal with the substantive issues of the type of document of title required under the contract entered into by the parties. Cross References: Articles 2 and 5. Definitional Cross References: “Contract for sale”. Section 2-106. “Document”. Section 7-102. Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Former Section 7-509. Changes: To reference Article 2A. Purposes: To cross-refer to the Articles of this Act which deal with the substantive issues of the type of document of title required under the contract entered into by the parties. Cross References: Articles 2, 2A and 5. Definitional Cross References: “Contract for sale”. Section 2-106. “Document of title”. Section 1-201. “Lease”. Section 2A-103.  Part 6.   Warehouse Receipts and Bills of Lading: Miscellaneous Provisions.
DC Code § 28:7-603 (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|§ 28:7-603. Conflicting claims; interpleader

If more than one person claims title to or possession of the goods, the bailee is excused from delivery until the bailee has a reasonable time to ascertain the validity of the adverse claims or to commence an action for interpleader. The bailee may assert an interpleader either in defending an action for nondelivery of the goods or by original action.  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 731, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:7-603. 1973 Ed., § 28:7-603. Uniform Commercial Code Comment Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: Sections 16 and 17, Uniform Warehouse Receipts Act; Sections 20 and 21, Uniform Bills of Lading Act. Changes: Consolidation without substantial change. Purposes of Changes: The section enables a bailee faced with conflicting claims to the goods to compel the claimants to litigate their claims with each other rather than with him. Definitional Cross References: “Action”. Section 1-201. “Bailee”. Section 7-102. “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Person”. Section 1-201. “Reasonable time”. Section 1-204. Prior Uniform Statutory Provisions: Former Section 7-603. Changes: Changes for style only. Purposes: 1. The section enables a bailee faced with conflicting claims to the goods to compel the claimants to litigate their claims with each other rather than with the bailee. The bailee is protected from legal liability when the bailee complies with court orders from the interpleader. See e.g. Northwestern National Sales, Inc. v. Commercial Cold Storage, Inc., 162 Ga. App. 741, 293 S.E.2d. 30 (1982). 2. This section allows the bailee to bring an interpleader action but does not provide an exclusive basis for allowing interpleader. If either state or federal procedural rules allow an interpleader in other situations, the bailee may commence an interpleader under those rules. Even in an interpleader to which this section applies, the state or federal process of interpleader applies to the bailee’s action for interpleader. For example, state or federal interpleader statutes or rules may permit a bailee to protect its lien or to seek attorney’s fees and costs in the interpleader action. Cross reference: Point 1: Section 7-403. Definitional Cross References: “Action”. Section 1-201. “Bailee”. Section 7-102. “Delivery”. Section 1-201. “Goods”. Section 7-102. “Person”. Section 1-201. “Reasonable time”. Section 1-205.  Part 7.   Miscellaneous Provisions.
DC Code § 28:7-701 (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|§ 28:7-701. Applicability

This article applies to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises on or after the effective date of this article. This article does not apply to a document of title that is issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this article even if the document of title or bailment would be subject to this article if the document of title had been issued or bailment had arisen on or after the effective date of this article. This article does not apply to a right of action that has accrued before the effective date of this article.  (Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment This Act will apply prospectively only to documents of title issued or bailments that arise after the effective date of the Act.
DC Code § 28:7-702 (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|§ 28:7-702. Savings clause

A document of title issued or a bailment that arises before the effective date of this act and the rights, obligations, and interests flowing from that document or bailment are governed by any statute or other rule amended or repealed by this act as if the amendment or repeal had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other rule.  (Apr. 27, 2013, D.C. Law 19-299, § 9, 60 DCR 2634.)  Uniform Commercial Code Comment This Act will apply prospectively only to documents of title issued or bailments that arise after the effective date of the Act. To the extent that issues arise based upon documents of title or rights or obligations that arise prior to the effective date of this Act, prior law will apply to resolve those issues.
DC Code § 28:8-101 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 8 - Investment Securities|Part I - Short Title and General Matters|§ 28:8-101. Short title

This article may be cited as “Uniform Commercial Code—Investment Securities.”  (Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 732, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Mar. 16, 1993, D.C. Law 9-196, § 4, 39 DCR 9165; Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-240, § 2, 44 DCR 1087.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:8-101. 1973 Ed., § 28:8-101.
DC Code § 28:8-109 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 8 - Investment Securities|Part I - Short Title and General Matters|§ 28:8-109. Warranties in indirect holding

(a) A person who originates an entitlement order to a securities intermediary warrants to the securities intermediary that: (1) The entitlement order is made by an appropriate person, or if the entitlement order is by an agent, the agent has actual authority to act on behalf of the appropriate person; and (2) There is no adverse claim to the security entitlement. (b) A person who delivers a security certificate to a securities intermediary for credit to a securities account or originates an instruction with respect to an uncertificated security directing that the uncertificated security be credited to a securities account makes to the securities intermediary the warranties specified in § 28:8-108(a) or (b). (c) If a securities intermediary delivers a security certificate to its entitlement holder or causes its entitlement holder to be registered as the owner of an uncertificated security, the securities intermediary makes to the entitlement holder the warranties specified in § 28:8-108(a) or (b).  (Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-240, § 2, 44 DCR 1087.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:8-109. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. Subsection (a) provides that a person who originates an entitlement order warrants to the securities intermediary that the order is authorized, and warrants the absence of adverse claims. Subsection (b) specifies the warranties that are given when a person who holds securities directly has the holding converted into indirect form. A person who delivers a certificate to a securities intermediary or originates an instruction for an uncertificated security gives to the securities intermediary the transfer warranties under Section 8-108. If the securities intermediary in turn delivers the certificate to a higher level securities intermediary, it gives the same warranties. 2. Subsection (c) states the warranties that a securities intermediary gives when a customer who has been holding securities in an account with the securities intermediary requests that certificates be delivered or that uncertificated securities be registered in the customer’s name. The warranties are the same as those that brokers make with respect to securities that the brokers sell to or buy on behalf of the customers. See Section 8-108(i). 3. As with the Section 8-108 warranties, the warranties specified in this section may be modified by agreement under Section 1-102(3). Definitional Cross References “Adverse claim”. Section 8-102(a)(1). “Appropriate person”. Section 8-107. “Entitlement holder”. Section 8-102(a)(7). “Entitlement order”. Section 8-102(a)(8). “Instruction”. Section 8-102(a)(12). “Person”. Section 1-201(30). “Securities account”. Section 8-501. “Securities intermediary”. Section 8-102(a)(14). “Security certificate”. Section 8-102(a)(16). “Uncertificated security”. Section 8-102(a)(18).
DC Code § 28:8-111 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 8 - Investment Securities|Part I - Short Title and General Matters|§ 28:8-111. Clearing corporation rules

A rule adopted by a clearing corporation governing rights and obligations among the clearing corporation and its participants in the clearing corporation is effective even if the rule conflicts with this article and affects another party who does not consent to the rule.  (Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-240, § 2, 44 DCR 1087.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:8-111. Uniform Commercial Code Comment 1. The experience of the past few decades shows that securities holding and settlement practices may develop rapidly, and in unforeseeable directions. Accordingly, it is desirable that the rules of Article 8 be adaptable both to ensure that commercial law can conform to changing practices and to ensure that commercial law does not operate as an obstacle to developments in securities practice. Even if practices were unchanging, it would not be possible in a general statute to specify in detail the rules needed to provide certainty in the operations of the clearance and settlement system. The provisions of this Article and Article 1 on the effect of agreements provide considerable flexibility in the specification of the details of the rights and obligations of participants in the securities holding system by agreement. See Sections 8-504 through 8-509, and Section 1-102(3) and (4). Given the magnitude of the exposures involved in securities transactions, however, it may not be possible for the parties in developing practices to rely solely on private agreements, particularly with respect to matters that might affect others, such as creditors. For example, in order to be fully effective, rules of clearing corporations on the finality or reversibility of securities settlements must not only bind the participants in the clearing corporation but also be effective against their creditors. Section 8-111 provides that clearing corporation rules are effective even if they indirectly affect third parties, such as creditors of a participant. This provision does not, however, permit rules to be adopted that would govern the rights and obligations of third parties other than as a consequence of rules that specify the rights and obligations of the clearing corporation and its participants. 2. The definition of clearing corporation in Section 8-102 covers only federal reserve banks, entities registered as clearing agencies under the federal securities laws, and others subject to comparable regulation. The rules of registered clearing agencies are subject to regulatory oversight under the federal securities laws. Definitional Cross References “Clearing corporation”. Section 8-102(a)(5).
DC Code § 28:8-113 (2021)
2021 District of Columbia Code|Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title]|Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code|Article 8 - Investment Securities|Part I - Short Title and General Matters|§ 28:8-113. Statute of frauds inapplicable

A contract or modification of a contract for the sale or purchase of a security is enforceable whether or not there is a writing signed or record authenticated by a party against whom enforcement is sought, even if the contract or modification is not capable of performance within one year of its making.  (Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-240, § 2, 44 DCR 1087.)  Prior Codifications 1981 Ed., § 28:8-113. Uniform Commercial Code Comment This section provides that the statute of frauds does not apply to contracts for the sale of securities, reversing prior law which had a special statute of frauds in Section 8-319 (1978). With the increasing use of electronic means of communication, the statute of frauds is unsuited to the realities of the securities business. For securities transactions, whatever benefits a statute of frauds may play in filtering out fraudulent claims are outweighed by the obstacles it places in the development of modern commercial practices in the securities business. Definitional Cross References “Action”. Section 1-201(1). “Contract”. Section 1-201(11). “Writing”. Section 1-201(46).