1. (a) If an accepted payment order was transmitted pursuant to a security procedure for the detection of error and the payment order (i) erroneously instructed payment to a beneficiary not intended by the sender, (ii) erroneously instructed payment in an amount greater than the amount intended by the sender, or (iii) was an erroneously transmitted duplicate of a payment order previously sent by the sender, the following rules apply:
2. (1) If the sender proves that the sender or a person acting on behalf of the sender pursuant to Section 14 of this act complied with the security procedure and that the error would have been detected if the receiving bank had also complied, the sender is not obliged to pay the order to the extent stated in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection.
3. (2) If the funds transfer is completed on the basis of an erroneous payment order described in clause (i) or (iii) of subsection (a) of this section, the sender is not obliged to pay the order and the receiving bank is entitled to recover from the beneficiary any amount paid to the beneficiary to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution.
4. (3) If the funds transfer is completed on the basis of a payment order described in clause (ii) of subsection (a) of this section, the sender is not obliged to pay the order to the extent the amount received by the beneficiary is greater than the amount intended by the sender. In that case, the receiving bank is entitled to recover from the beneficiary the excess amount received to the extent allowed by the law governing mistake and restitution.

5. (b) If (i) the

   sender of an erroneous payment order described in subsection (a) of this section is not obliged to pay all or part of the order, and (ii) the sender receives notification from the receiving bank that the order was accepted by the bank or that the sender's account was debited with respect to the order, the sender has a duty to exercise ordinary care, on the basis of information available to the sender, to discover the error with respect to the order and to advise the bank of the relevant facts within a reasonable time, not exceeding ninety (90) days, after the bank's notification was received by the sender. If the bank proves that the sender failed to perform that duty, the sender is liable to the bank for the loss the bank proves it incurred as a result of the failure, but the liability of the sender may not exceed the amount of the sender's order.

6. (c) This section applies to amendments to

   payment orders to the same extent it applies to payment orders.

   Oklahoma Code Comment

   With respect to Official Comment 1, Oklahoma law supports the result in Case # 1, Case # 2 and Case # 3 that the

   sender's remedy is from the beneficiary who received payment. See the introductory comment as to the Oklahoma law on mistake and restitution. If an error is not detected, some beneficiary will receive funds that the beneficiary was not intended to receive and the risk of loss with respect to the error of the sender is shifted to the bank, which has the burden of recovering the funds from the beneficiary. A receiving bank to which the risk of loss is shifted by subsections (2) and (3) should be entitled under existing Oklahoma law to recover the amount erroneously paid to the beneficiary.

   With respect to Official Comment 2, existing Oklahoma law is silent on this point except by analogy to Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code.

   For discussion of cases decided under law prior to Article 4A concerning erroneous orders and how Article 4A would resolve these issues, Bee the discussion of the Walker and Banque Worms cases in the introductory comment.

Laws 1990, SB 641, c. 110, § 13, eff. July 1, 1991.