Consumer complaint received 2024-02-08 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — International money transfer
Issue: Other transaction problem — 
Company: BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
BANK OF AMERICA XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX 
XXXX, NC XXXX CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU / CASE NUMBER XXXX RESPONSE OF XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX TO BANK OF AMERICAS RESPONSE DATED XX/XX/XXXX : In your response to my claim ( case # XXXX ), it is said : In accordance to our Deposit Agreement and Disclosures, ( the : Agreement ) which comprises part of the contract between us and our clients, we may reject payments orders. We ( BoA ) are not liable to you for the rejection. 

It is also said in your response of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  : On XX/XX/XXXX, a wire transfer sent by XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, in the amount of {$30000.00} posted to your account ending in XXXX. As noted in our Agreement there may be times when the beneficiarys bank may make payment to the beneficiary based solely on the account or other identifying number, even if the name on the payment order differs from the name on the account and we accept. In this instance, this wire was repaired and credited to your account, but that is not a bank standard. 

On XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America rejected a wire transfer similar on all points to the one sent on XX/XX/XXXX to Bank of America by XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX on behalf of XXXX XXXX, account ending in XXXX. 

As justification for the rejection of the wire transfer of XX/XX/XXXX, Bank of America invoked that when the account ending in XXXX was opened on XX/XX/XXXX, it was titled XXXX XXXX XXXX, In Trust For ( ITF ) XXXX and XXXX and XXXX and XXXX and XXXX XXXX. 

Another justification for the rejection of the wire transfer of XX/XX/XXXX, invoked by Bank of America is that : there may be times when Bank of America may decide ( depending of its mood? ) to accept or reject a wire transfer, implying that Bank of America has the unilateral right or authority to modify the terms and conditions of the contract between the bank and its customers. 

A contract is considered bilateral when two parties express their willingness to adhere to the agreement. These two parties commit to each other and modify their legal situation accordingly. 

On the other hand, a contract is qualified as unilateral when an agreement of wills binds only one of the parties. In this case, only one person commits, while the other party has no obligation. A common example of a one-sided contract is an offer of a reward for finding a lost item. 

In short, bilaterality is essential for an agreement to be considered a contract. It reflects the mutual exchange of obligations between the parties, thereby ensuring the validity and effectiveness of the agreement. 

It is important to note that unilateral will can also play a role in the formation of a contract, although the initial preparation is often the work of a single person before both parties formally commit. 

Bank of America issued several booklets of checks under the name of XXXX XXXX who, until today still detains three ( 3 ) booklets of checks under the name of XXXX XXXX ( XXXX # XXXX to XXXX ; XXXX to XXXX ; XXXX to XXXX ) - and no more booklets of checks under the name of XXXX XXXX XXXX - violated its own Deposit Agreement and Disclosures ( the Agreement ) which comprises part of the contract between BoA and its clients, mislead XXXX XXXX XXXX who, especially after the acceptance of the wire transfer of XX/XX/XXXX by Bank of America, could rightfully believe that the name XXXX XXXX written by Bank of America on its checks is legitimately acceptable and usable to carry out wire transfers like any other banking transactions. 

Bank of America could and should have, after repairing and crediting the transfer of XX/XX/XXXXXXXX  to my bank account ending in XXXX - based on the principles of contractual bilaterality and reciprocity, essential to guarantee fairness and trust in contractual relations- inform and warn XXXX XXXX not to use XXXX XXXX for future transfers. 

Based on the above considerations, Bank of America by falling to inform and warn XXXX XXXX XXXX not to use XXXX XXXX for future transfers after issuing booklets of checks under the name of XXXX XXXX and repairing and crediting the transfer of XX/XX/XXXX, acted in bad faith, violated, once again, the contract between the parties and caused harm to XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX at the eve of the XXXX holidays. 

Therefore, XXXX XXXX XXXX | XXXX XXXX reserves the right to take such legal actions as necessary against Bank of America to obtain, right and reasonable compensation for the harm unduly caused by Bank of America, if a reasonable resolution is not reached by the parties.

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation