reglab/statecodes huggingface dataset:
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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).
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 5 - Letters of Credit › § 28:5–105. Consideration

§ 28:5–105. Consideration.
Consideration is not required to issue, amend, transfer, or cancel a letter of credit, advice, or confirmation.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 710, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-238, § 2, 44 DCR 923.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:5-105.
1973 Ed., § 28:5-105.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
It is not to be expected that any issuer will issue its letter of credit without some form of remuneration. But it is not expected that the beneficiary will know what the issuer’s remuneration was or whether in fact there was any identifiable remuneration in a given case. And it might be difficult for the beneficiary to prove the issuer’s remuneration. This section dispenses with this proof and is consistent with the position of Lord Mansfield in Pillans v. Van Mierop, 97 Eng.Rep. 1035 (K.B. 1765) in making consideration irrelevant.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 5 - Letters of Credit › § 28:5–115. Statute of limitations

§ 28:5–115. Statute of limitations.
An action to enforce a right or obligation arising under this article must be commenced within one year after the expiration date of the relevant letter of credit or one year after the cause of action accrues, whichever occurs later. A cause of action accrues when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party’s lack of knowledge of the breach.
(Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-238, § 2, 44 DCR 923.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:5-115.
1973 Ed., § 28:5-115.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
1. This section is based upon Sections 4-111 and 2-725(2).
2. This section applies to all claims for which there are remedies under Section 5-111 and to other claims made under this article, such as claims for breach of warranty under Section 5-110. Because it covers all claims under Section 5-111, the statute of limitations applies not only to wrongful dishonor claims against the issuer but also to claims between the issuer and the applicant arising from the reimbursement agreement. These might be for reimbursement (issuer v. applicant) or for breach of the reimbursement contract by wrongful honor (applicant v. issuer).
3. The statute of limitations, like the rest of the statute, applies only to a letter of credit issued on or after the effective date and only to transactions, events, obligations, or duties arising out of or associated with such a letter. If a letter of credit was issued before the effective date and an obligation on that letter of credit was breached after the effective date, the complaining party could bring its suit within the time that would have been permitted prior to the adoption of Section 5-115 and would not be limited by the terms of Section 5-115.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 5 - Letters of Credit › § 28:5–119. Savings clause

§ 28:5–119. Savings clause.
A transaction arising out of or associated with a letter of credit that was issued before the effective date of this article and the rights, obligations, and interests flowing from that transaction are governed by any statute or other law amended or repealed by this article as if repeal or amendment had not occurred and may be terminated, completed, consummated, or enforced under that statute or other law.
(Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-238, § 2, 44 DCR 923.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:5-119.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 5 - Letters of Credit › § 28:5–120. Security interest of issuer or nominated person

§ 28:5–120. Security interest of issuer or nominated person.
(a) An issuer or nominated person has a security interest in a document presented under a letter of credit to the extent that the issuer or nominated person honors or gives value for the presentation.
(b) So long as and to the extent that an issuer or nominated person has not been reimbursed or has not otherwise recovered the value given with respect to a security interest in a document under subsection (a), the security interest continues and is subject to Article 9, but:
(1) A security agreement is not necessary to make the security interest enforceable under § 28:9-203(b)(3);
(2) If the document is presented in a medium other than a written or other tangible medium, the security interest is perfected; and
(3) If the document is presented in a written or other tangible medium and is not a certificated security, chattel paper, a document of title, an instrument, or a letter of credit, the security interest is perfected and has priority over a conflicting security interest in the document so long as the debtor does not have possession of the document.
(Oct. 26, 2000, D.C. Law 13-201, § 201(f)(2), 47 DCR 7576; Mar. 13, 2004, D.C. Law 15-105, § 62, 51 DCR 881.)
Effect of Amendments
D.C. Law 15-105 validated a previously made technical correction.
Cross References
Business corporations, property and assets, disposition, approval, dissenting shareholders, see § 29-201.39.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 6 - Bulk Transfers › § 28:6–109. What constitutes filing; duties of filing officer; information from filing officer. [Repealed]

§ 28:6–109. What constitutes filing; duties of filing officer; information from filing officer. [Repealed]
Repealed.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 716, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; renumbered and amended, Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-239, § 2, 44 DCR 936; Oct. 23, 2014, D.C. Law 20-215, § 31, 61 DCR 13083.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:6-109.
1973 Ed., § 28:6-109.
Editor's Notes
Applicability of D.C. Law 20-215: Section 32 of D.C. Law 20-215 provided that the act shall apply as of January 1, 2016.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision: None Purposes of New Matter:
This Article contemplates public filing of bulk sale notices and lists of claimants in a single filing office in each state. This section, which derives substantially from Sections 9-403 and 9-407, governs filing. The filing system is designed to enable one seeking information about a sale to discover any filed notices or lists by searching under either the seller’s or the buyer’s (but not the auctioneer’s or liquidator’s) individual, partnership, or corporate name.
Cross-References:Sections 6-103, 6-105, 9-403, and 9-407.
Definitional Cross-References: “Auctioneer”. Section 6-102.
“Buyer”. Section 2-103.
“Liquidator”. Section 6-102.
“Person”. Section 1-201.
“Seller”. Section 2-103.
“Send”. Section 1-201.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 6 - Bulk Transfers › § 28:6–110. Limitation of actions. [Repealed]

§ 28:6–110. Limitation of actions. [Repealed]
Repealed.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 717, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; renumbered and amended, Apr. 9, 1997, D.C. Law 11-239, § 2, 44 DCR 936; Oct. 23, 2014, D.C. Law 20-215, § 31, 61 DCR 13083.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:6-110.
1973 Ed., § 28:6-110.
Editor's Notes
Applicability of D.C. Law 20-215: Section 32 of D.C. Law 20-215 provided that the act shall apply as of January 1, 2016.
Uniform Commercial Code Comment
Prior Uniform Statutory Provision:Section 6-111 (1987 Official Text).
Changes: Statute of limitations extended and clarified.
Purposes of Changes and New Matter: 1. This Article imposes liability upon only those who do not make a good faith and commercially reasonable effort to comply with the requirements of the Article or to exclude the sale from the application of the Article and who do not hold a good faith and commercially reasonable belief that the Article is inapplicable to the sale. Consequently, it extends the six-month limitation period of the 1987 Official Text, which applies to good faith transferees as well as those not in good faith, to one year. The period commences with the date of the bulk sale.
2. Cases decided under the 1987 Official Text of Article 6 disagree over whether the complete failure to comply with the requirements of that Article constitutes a concealment that tolls the limitation. This Article adopts the view that noncompliance does not of itself constitute concealment.
3. This Article does not contemplate tolling the limitation for actions against a person in control of the seller who fails to distribute the net contract price in accordance with the schedule of distribution. Those actions must be commenced within one year after the alleged violation occurs.
Cross-References: Point 1: Sections 1-201, 6-102, 6-107 and 6-108.
Point 3: Section 6-107.
Definitional Cross-References: “Action”. Section 1-201.
“Auctioneer”. Section 6-102.
“Buyer”. Section 2-103.
“Date of the bulk sale”. Section 6-102.
“Liquidator”. Section 6-102.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 6 - Bulk Transfers › § 28:6–111. Limitation of actions and levies. [Repealed]

§ 28:6–111. Limitation of actions and levies. [Repealed]
Repealed.
(Dec. 30, 1963, 77 Stat. 717, Pub. L. 88-243, § 1; Oct. 23, 2014, D.C. Law 20-215, § 31, 61 DCR 13083.)
Prior Codifications
1981 Ed., § 28:6-111.
1973 Ed., § 28:6-111.
Editor's Notes
Applicability of D.C. Law 20-215: Section 32 of D.C. Law 20-215 provided that the act shall apply as of January 1, 2016.
2023 District of Columbia Code › Title 28 - Commercial Instruments and Transactions. [Enacted title] › Subtitle I - Uniform Commercial Code › Article 6 - Bulk Transfers › § 28:6–112. Compliance with section 47-4461. [Repealed]

§ 28:6–112. Compliance with section 47-4461. [Repealed]
Repealed.
(June 9, 2001, D.C. Law 13-305, § 407(b), 48 DCR 334; Oct. 23, 2014, D.C. Law 20-215, § 31, 61 DCR 13083.)
Cross References
Notice of bulk sale, § 47-4461.
Editor's Notes
Section 410 (f) of D.C. Law 13-305 provided: “Section 407 shall apply as of January 1, 2001.”
Applicability of D.C. Law 20-215: Section 32 of D.C. Law 20-215 provided that the act shall apply as of January 1, 2016.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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].
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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.
2023 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

§ 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).