This article outlines an optional method by which a bank may recover data that has been corrupted after having been received. Electronic records will be initially presented by the presenter (principal) to the remitting bank, and then by the remitting bank to the collecting or presenting bank. The rule reflects who should approach (inform) whom in this sequence of events. The chain of communication is that the collecting/presenting bank will communicate with the remitting bank. The remitting bank may be able to resolve the issue with or without the intervention of the principal.
There is no rule in URC 522 for paper documents that are lost or rendered unreadable by a bank after they have been received. Because most banks have procedures in place that minimise the consequences of such loss, there has been no perceived need for such a rule.
These procedures may involve requesting a substitute document, or indemnifying the applicant for any harm that may result from the lost document. This informal system generally works since the risks related to handling and storing paper documents are known and acceptable. With respect to electronic records, however, there is not a similar level of understanding or comfort. As a result, there could be a degree of unease regarding the possibility of the loss of data by a bank after an electronic record has been presented. This article addresses these concerns.
As a practical matter, the process created by eURC article e11 should allow the substitution of data speedily and with minimum delay and inconvenience. The advantage is that it operates without regard to fault or negligence and avoids entirely the difficult questions of liability and the need for inherent proof.
It is important to note that the article only relates to the data corruption of an electronic record after receipt of the presentation. Issues relating to the electronic record prior to presentation remain the responsibility of the presenter.
The provisions of this article are solely optional and parties are entirely at liberty to utilise or implement their own solutions to this issue. However, the content of this article is believed to reflect the optimal approach.
The article stipulates that failure to replace data within 30 calendar days after a request pursuant to eURC article e11 has been made is deemed to be a failure to present the electronic record. Because of the seriousness of this consequence, the time period is sufficiently reasonable to permit replacement, and all parties should be cautious about lessening this period, which may raise questions about its reasonableness.