Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay v. Ocean Bank
Florida District Court of Appeal
715 So. 2d 967 (1998)
- Written by Mary Pfotenhauer, JD
Facts
Corfan Banco Asuncion Paraguay (Corfan Bank) (plaintiff) originated a wire transfer to an account held by Jorge Silva at Ocean Bank (defendant). The wire transfer correctly identified Silva as the recipient but included an incorrect account number, which referred to a nonexistent account. After receiving the wire transfer, Ocean Bank confirmed the correct account number with Silva, accepted the wire transfer, and credited Silva’s correct account number with the amount of the transfer. The following day, Corfan Bank discovered that the account number on the wire transfer was incorrect and, without notifying Silva or Ocean Bank, sent a second wire transfer for the same amount to Silva’s correct account number at Ocean Bank. Ocean Bank accepted the second wire transfer and credited Silva’s account. Silva withdrew the funds from both transfers. Corfan Bank requested that Ocean Bank repay the amount of the first wire transfer to Corfan Bank. Ocean Bank refused, and Corfan Bank sued Ocean Bank. Corfan Bank’s complaint alleged one claim based on Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 4A-207 and another claim based on common-law negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Ocean Bank and dismissed the complaint. Corfan Bank appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sorondo, J.)
Dissent (Nesbitt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.