Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 4A-209
Oklahoma Code Comment
Section 4A-209(b)(1) contemplates that a beneficiary bank may "accept" a payment order before receiving final settlement from the sender. One of the ways acceptance may occur is if the beneficiary receives oral notification of the transfer. In this situation, the beneficiary bank has, in essence, accepted the debt obligation of the sending bank. The beneficiary's bank, in turn, becomes indebted to the beneficiary by accepting the sending bank's debt obligation, unless the credit provided the beneficiary is provisional. If the credit is provisional and is drawn upon, and is then revoked, then the beneficiary's bank has technically extended credit to the beneficiary until settlement occurs.
Okla. Stat., Tit. 15, § 140 (Supp.1989) provides that neither a borrower nor a lender may enforce an oral commitment to extend credit for an amount over $15,000.00. This provision would not apply to a transaction under 4A-209(b)(1) with respect to the credit extended to the sending bank; under Article 4A, the extension of credit is statutory, not oral. While acceptance of the order by the beneficiary's bank by the oral notification to the beneficiary triggers the extension of credit, the obligation itself is created by statute, not contract, and therefore does not fall within Title 15, § 140.
If a provisional credit is drawn upon, and then revoked, Section 140 will not apply because there is no commitment. Note that if the beneficiary draws against a provisional credit, which is then reversed, the extension of credit to the beneficiary might prevent the institution from making additional loans to the beneficiary, but may not cause personal liability on the part of officers and directors, depending upon the facts, for exceeding the financial institution's individual lending limit. There are other situations which may also cause lending limit problems. The potential for loss suggests that financial institutions should exercise the same degree of caution in establishing provisional credits for funds transfers as they exercise in granting provisional credit for uncollected funds under Article 4.
With respect to Official Comment 6, under Oklahoma law since the bank has paid the holder of Account #1246 by mistake, the bank has a right to recover the payment if the credit is withdrawn. See Associates Discount Corporation v. Clements, 321 P.2d 673 (Okla. 1958).
Addressing Official Comment 9, if beneficiary received the money in good faith in payment of a debt owed to beneficiary by originator, Oklahoma law would allow beneficiary to keep all or part of the money received. See Knapp v. First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 154 F.2d 395 (10th Cir. 1946).