Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 3-417
Oklahoma Code Comment
1. The party making presentment makes fewer warranties than a party who transfers the instrument. A primary difference is that the transferor warrants the genuineness of all signatures, while the presenter warrants the genuineness of all indorsements (this is part of the warranty of good title in sub section 3-417(a)(1); see, e.g., Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 454 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Okla. 1977)), but only a lack of knowledge regarding any lack of authority for the drawer's signature (UCC § 3-417(a)(3)). The reason often given is that the drawee/payor is in a better position to judge the genuineness of its customer's signature. This time-honored concept dates from the English case of Price v. Neal, 3 Burr. 1354 (1762), and has long been the Oklahoma rule. See Cherokee Nat'l Bank v. Union Trust Co., 33 Okla. 342, 125 P. 464 (1912). A similar set of warranties exists for the bank collection process. See UCC § 4-208. The law prior to the 1992 UCC revisions contained a number of exceptions to the presenter's warranty; for example, there was no warranty against alteration given to a drawer, who should recognize its own instrument. The current restructured provisions produce no different result but allow elimination of the exceptions.
As a result, if a payor finalpayment under Section 4-215 or becomes accountable under Section 4-302 , and then discovers that the drawer's signature is a forgery, the bank cannot recover from the presenter for breach of warranty. In contrast, if a forged indorsement is discovered in these circumstances, there will be a cause of action for breach of warranty See UCC §§ 3-417(a)(1), 4-208(A)(I). In either case, however, the payor may have a remedy based on the law of mistake and restitution. See UCC §§ 3-418 and 4-302(b); F. MILLER & A. HAR RELL, THE LAW OF MODERN PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND NOTES 1 8.02[3] & [4] (2d ed. 1992).
2. Liability for breach of warranty in the form of an unauthorized indorsement or alteration may be precluded or mitigated under Sections 3-401 through 3-407 or Section 4-406 . In such case, the instrument would be considered properly payable to the extent of the preclusion, permitting, for example, the payor bank to charge the drawer's account (subject to any offsetting liability of the party asserting the preclusion, under the new comparative negligence standard in sub sections 3-404(d), 3-405(b), 3-406(b) and 4-406(e)). See UCC §§ 404-l(a), 4-406(f); F. MILLER & A. HARRELL THE LAW OF MODERN PAYMENT SYSTEMS AND NOTES 19.03[4] (2d ed. 1992). See generally MILLER & HARRELL at P 7.02[3].
3. This Section's Official Comment 5 explains that the recovery under Sections 3-417 and 4-208 leaves the question of attorney's fees open to interpretation in each state. For Oklahoma, see Guaranty Bank & Trust Co. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 454 F.Supp. 488 (W.D. Okla. 1977) (attorney fees awarded). See also UCC § 4-207. Oklahoma Comment