Opinion ID: 1722513
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Contention of the Parties

Text: The Bank's basic position is that the items are payable through drafts and as a consequence it was a collecting bank liable only for the exercise of ordinary care in carrying out the obligations imposed upon it; and that if it was in fact negligent, the measure of damages is the face amount of the items reduced by any amount which could not have been realized by ordinary care. It contends that at best the issue of its negligence was a jury question and that since Berman presented no proof at all that anything could have been realized from Ferer, even if ordinary care had been exercised, it was entitled to a directed verdict because there is no proof of damages in accordance with the legal measure. Berman's primary position is that the Bank was a payor bank under the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and, because it failed to return the items or give notice of dishonor or nonpayment before the deadline or the earlier deadline established by the clearing agreement, it was accountable under code provisions for the face amount of the items. He also takes the position that irrespective of the Bank's status as a collecting bank or a payor bank, final settlement had been made for the items and the Bank could not reverse the transaction after the deadline for return. We accept Berman's position.