![]() ![]() Receiver has no relationship with the Originator Receiver does not know the identity of the Originator Return Reason Code R10 is now defined as “Customer Advises Originator is Not Known to Receiver and/or Originator is Not Authorized by Receiver to Debit Receiver’s Account” and used for: On April 1, 2021, the re-purposed R11 return code becomes covered by the existing Unauthorized Entry Fee. This part of the rule will be implemented by the ACH Operators, and as with the current fee, is billed/credited on their monthly statements of charges.Īs noted in ACH Operations Bulletin #4-2020, RDFIs that are not ready to use R11 as of Apshould continue to use R10. RDFIs should implement R11 as soon as possible. The rule becomes effective in two phases. On April 1, 2020, the re-purposed return code became effective, and financial institutions will use it for its new purpose. Other provisions in the rules that apply to unauthorized returns became effective at this time with respect to R11s – i.e., Unauthorized Entry Return Rate and its relationship to ODFI Return Rate Reporting obligations. ![]() When a reference is made to some factual matter, rather than another legislative provision, "on the basis of", "because of" and "as a result of" are good alternatives.The rule re-purposes an existing, little-used return reason code (R11) that will be used when a receiving customer claims that there was an error with an otherwise authorized payment. Previously, return reason code R10 was used a catch-all for various types of underlying unauthorized return reasons, including some for which a valid authorization exists, such as a debit on the wrong date or for the wrong amount. In these types of cases, a return of the debit still should be made, but the Originator and its customer (the Receiver) might both benefit from a correction of the error rather than the termination of the origination authorization. The use of a distinct return reason code (R11) enables a return that conveys this new meaning of “error” rather than “no authorization.”Įffective date: Phase 1 – Apeffective date Phase 2 – April 1, 2021. These examples suggest not only that section 5 provides authority for issuing the licence, but also that it sets out rules governing or requiring its issuance. a licence issued as required by section 5.a licence issued in accordance with section 5.If it is necessary to clearly refer to the authority for its issuance, it is better to say:īy the same token, in order to convey unambiguously the sense of conformity with a set of rules, "in accordance with" or "as required by" should be used. It may instead provide rules about issuing licences. However, section 5 may be related in another way. In this example, "under" would most often link the licence to the authority for its issuance. Similar concerns arise with the following example: If it is necessary to make the latter meaning clear, it is better to say However, it would also be appropriate if section 5 establishes procedures to which the offence is subject. This example could be used if section 5 creates the offence. If a provision involves something that is established, issued or done, "under" can provide the link necessary to refer to the provision. The following examples and commentary explain how these alternatives may be used. Other alternatives are "in accordance with", "as required by", "described in", "authorized by", "on the basis of", "because of" and "as a result of". "Pursuant to" tends to denote things that are principally or specifically dependent on a related provision, while "under" also includes things that are merely related to it. This comment also suggests that "under" is a broader term. The word "under" has many meanings - in many instances, it denotes a lower or subservient state, but it also denotes a reference to or relationship with some other thing. It is a more common word and has a range of meanings that match the many meanings of "pursuant to". "Under" is perhaps the most generally applicable alternative. For these reasons, legislative counsel should use another word or expression that is more common and, if there is a risk of ambiguity, more precise. It is also sometimes ambiguous because it has a number of different meanings. Although it is used in legal writing and in the legal community, it is not used in ordinary speech or writing. The expression "pursuant to" is used in legal drafting to link a provision to another provision or to some factual matter. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |