La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207 (2026)

Transfer warranties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§4-207. Transfer warranties

            (a) A customer or collecting bank that transfers an item and receives a settlement or other consideration warrants to the transferee and to any subsequent collecting bank that:

            (1) the warrantor is a person entitled to enforce the item;

            (2) all signatures on the item are authentic and authorized;

            (3) the item has not been altered;

            (4) the item is not subject to a defense or claim in recoupment (R.S. 10:3-305(a)) of any party that can be asserted against the warrantor; and

            (5) the warrantor has no knowledge of any insolvency proceeding commenced with respect to the maker or acceptor or, in the case of an unaccepted draft, the drawer.

            (b) If an item is dishonored, a customer or collecting bank transferring the item and receiving settlement or other consideration is obliged to pay the amount due on the item (i) according to the terms of the item at the time it was transferred, or (ii) if the transfer was of an incomplete item, according to its terms when completed as stated in R.S. 10:3-115 and 10:3-407. The obligation of a transferor is owed to the transferee and to any subsequent collecting bank that takes the item in good faith. A transferor cannot disclaim its obligation under this Subsection by an indorsement stating that it is made "without recourse" or otherwise disclaiming liability.

            (c) A person to whom the warranties under Subsection (a) of this Section are made and who took the item in good faith may recover from the warrantor as damages for breach of warranty an amount equal to the loss suffered as a result of the breach, but not more than the amount of the item plus expenses and loss of interest incurred as a result of the breach. If the person to whom the warranties are made sends written notice by certified or registered mail or commercial courier to the warrantor of its claim for breach of warranty and the warrantor fails to pay the claim within thirty days after receiving the notice, the expenses of the person to whom the warranties are made shall include reasonable attorney fees.

            (d) The warranties stated in Subsection (a) of this Section cannot be disclaimed with respect to checks. Unless notice of a claim for breach of warranty is given to the warrantor within thirty days after the claimant has reason to know of the breach and the identity of the warrantor, the warrantor is discharged to the extent of any loss caused by the delay in giving notice of the claim.

            (e) A cause of action for breach of warranty under this Section accrues when the claimant has reason to know of the breach.

            Acts 1992, No. 1133, §4, eff. July 1, 1993; Acts 1993, No. 948, §10, eff. Jan. 1, 1994; Acts 2024, No. 208, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1982–2008 · leading case: Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So. 2d 524 (La. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So. 2d 524 (La. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 13× “CNB claims that the trial court erred in holding the plaintiffs had a cause of action under LSA-R.S. 10:4-207. FSB and CNB argue that the trial court erred in not reducing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs by the amounts refunded to them by Scriber.”
Graham v. Strother, 684 So. 2d 1088 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “He further argued that Pioneer collected checks made payable to IMC and by virtue of its collection, Pioneer made the warranties of LSA-R.S. 10:4-207 to Graham. Graham argues that Pioneer breached those warranties in that (1) Strother did not have good title to the checks at…”
Arthur Dooley & Son, Etc. v. Johnson, 422 So. 2d 1270 (La. Ct. App. 1982). “R.S. 10:4-207 it warranted to any payor, including the drawer, Dooley, that it had good title, no knowledge that the signature of the drawer was unauthorized and that the item had not been materially altered.”
Auto Servicio San Ignacio, S.R.L. v. Compania Anonima Venezolana De Navegacion, 586 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. La. 1984). “R.S. 10:4-207, made applicable to a confirming or advising bank pursuant to La.”
Lehman v. Bank One, NA, 976 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 10× “R.S. 10:4-207, the Bank was justified in debiting Lehman's home equity line of credit account for $21,500 after it determined that the cashier's check was counterfeit.”
La Indus. for Disabled, Inc. v. Premier Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 807 So. 2d 1190 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “R.S. 10:4-207, defendant, Premier ..., as the collecting bank warranted that all signatures on the checks were authentic and authorized.”
Quantum Supplies Inc. v. Bank of the South, 544 So. 2d 1 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “PROPER ENDORSEMENT Since the trial court found that Security breached the warranties provided by LSR.S. 10:4-207 as to title and endorsements by accepting a check that was not endorsed by the named payee, we must first determine the identity of the payee.”
Irwin v. First Nat. Bank of Lafayette, 587 So. 2d 203 (La. Ct. App. 1991). “R.S. 10:4-207. FNB did not have authority to obtain payment on behalf of LeCheval II.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(3): 1 case
Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So. 2d 524 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “CNB claims that the trial court erred in holding the plaintiffs had a cause of action under LSA-R.S. 10:4-207. FSB and CNB argue that the trial court erred in not reducing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs by the amounts refunded to them by Scriber.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(4): 2 cases
Kobuszewski v. Scriber, 518 So. 2d 524 (La. Ct. App. 1987). “CNB claims that the trial court erred in holding the plaintiffs had a cause of action under LSA-R.S. 10:4-207. FSB and CNB argue that the trial court erred in not reducing the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs by the amounts refunded to them by Scriber.”
Graham v. Strother, 684 So. 2d 1088 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “He further argued that Pioneer collected checks made payable to IMC and by virtue of its collection, Pioneer made the warranties of LSA-R.S. 10:4-207 to Graham. Graham argues that Pioneer breached those warranties in that (1) Strother did not have good title to the checks at…”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(a): 1 case
Lehman v. Bank One, NA, 976 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 10:4-207, the Bank was justified in debiting Lehman's home equity line of credit account for $21,500 after it determined that the cashier's check was counterfeit.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(b): 1 case
Lehman v. Bank One, NA, 976 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 10:4-207, the Bank was justified in debiting Lehman's home equity line of credit account for $21,500 after it determined that the cashier's check was counterfeit.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(c): 1 case
Lehman v. Bank One, NA, 976 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 10:4-207, the Bank was justified in debiting Lehman's home equity line of credit account for $21,500 after it determined that the cashier's check was counterfeit.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 10:4-207(d): 1 case
Lehman v. Bank One, NA, 976 So. 2d 356 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 10:4-207, the Bank was justified in debiting Lehman's home equity line of credit account for $21,500 after it determined that the cashier's check was counterfeit.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.