Court Opinion

ID: 9544111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:52:04.410995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:01.130093
License: Public Domain

CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring in the result) :
I concur in the result. But I think that if Valley Bank got actual notice the next day, as the trial court found, that it should be bound thereby and bear the loss. However, I do not think the proof of the defendant meets the substantial evidence test. In the many thousands of transactions handled by defendant bank, and the indication of 169 items charged back to one single bank (plaintiff) on that day, a mere notation that the phone call was made does not seem to me to be very substantial. Added to this are these countervailing facts: It was not indicated to whom the call was made; no one at Valley received such a call or had any record thereof; and moreover, written notice was in fact given to Valley, but several months late. I would therefore decide this case on the basis that there is no substantial evidence that notice was given to Valley. But I do not subscribe to the somewhat tortuous analysis of these seemingly inconsistent statutes, which purports to demonstrate that written *301notice must be given, even though the bank receives actual notice. That generally the giving of actual notice, orally or otherwise, is sufficient, and that deviation in technicality as to form should be disregarded unless it adversely affects the other’s rights, see Gallagher v. Willow School Tp., 173 Iowa 610, 154 N.W. 437; Heffernan v. United States Fid. & Guaranty Co., 37 Wash. 477, 79 P. 1095; Utah State Bldg. Bd. v. Walsh Plumbing Co., 16 Utah 2d 249, 399 P.2d 141, and authorities cited therein.