The Concept of Payment: Wire Transfer Orders, the Common Law and Article 4A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The immense size of the wire transfer orders that occur in the Eurocurrency market are integral to the operation of the international monetary system. Private international law should ensure the smooth facilitation of such transactions – yet both the common law and statutory provisions enacted in some jurisdictions do not definitively determine nor allocate liability in certain claim-conflict situations. The specific focus of this article is the determination of the point at which a wire transfer order is completed, resulting in the discharge of an underlying debt obligation between a payor and payee. Determining the point at which a payment order is complete is not within the purview of the payor or payee; rather, the internal processes of a beneficiary's bank dictate the time at which a wire transfer order is complete. This requires the payor to rely upon the payee's bank to complete payment and discharge an underlying debt obligation. This article will outline the common law decisions applicable to such transactions, and the statutory provisions of article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code that attempted to further refine liability. The conclusion of the article is that there is no predictable legal method to determine the point of completion of payment, resulting in payors making wire transfer orders at their own risk.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".