13 Pa.C.S. § 4A507

This is the official text of 13 Pa.C.S. § 4A507, part of Pennsylvania’s Pa.C.S — part of the compiled statutory law of Pennsylvania, published by the state as "Pa.C.S." Browse the sections below, each linked to its official government source.

Not legal advice. This page reproduces the official text of a government statute for reference only. Laws change, and how a statute applies depends on your specific facts. For advice about your situation, consult a licensed attorney in your state.

Choice of law.

Official statutory text

(a) General rule.--The following rules apply unless the affected parties otherwise agree or subsection (c) applies:

(1) The rights and obligations between the sender of a payment order and the receiving bank are governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the receiving bank is located.

(2) The rights and obligations between the beneficiary's bank and the beneficiary are governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the beneficiary's bank is located.

(3) The issue of when payment is made pursuant to a funds transfer by the originator to the beneficiary is governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the beneficiary's bank is located.

(b) By agreement.--If the parties described in each paragraph of subsection (a) have made an agreement selecting the law of a particular jurisdiction to govern rights and obligations between each other, the law of that jurisdiction

governs those rights and obligations, whether or not the payment order or the funds transfer bears a reasonable relation to that jurisdiction.

(c) By funds-transfer system rule.--A funds-transfer system rule may select the law of a particular jurisdiction to govern:

(1) rights and obligations between participating banks with respect to payment orders transmitted or processed through the system; or

(2) the rights and obligations of some or all parties to a funds transfer, any part of which is carried out by means of the system. A choice of law made pursuant to paragraph (1) is binding on participating banks. A choice of law made pursuant to paragraph

(2) is binding on the originator, other sender or a receiving bank having notice that the funds-transfer system might be used in the funds transfer and of the choice of law by the system when the originator, other sender or receiving bank issued or accepted a payment order. The beneficiary of a funds transfer is bound by the choice of law if, when the funds transfer is initiated, the beneficiary has notice that the funds-transfer system might be used in the funds transfer and of the choice of law by the system. The law of a jurisdiction selected pursuant to this subsection may govern, whether or not that law bears a reasonable relation to the matter in issue.

(d) Inconsistency between agreement and rule.--In the event of inconsistency between an agreement under subsection (b) and a choice-of-law rule under subsection (c), the agreement under subsection (b) prevails.

(e) Inconsistency between choice-of-law rules of systems.--If a funds transfer is made by use of more than one funds-transfer system and there is inconsistency between choice-of-law rules of the system, the matter in issue is governed by the law of the selected jurisdiction that has the most significant relationship to the matter in issue. Cross References. Section 4A507 is referred to in sections 1301, 4A501 of this title. DIVISION 5 LETTERS OF CREDIT Chapter 51. Letters of Credit Enactment. Division 5 was added June 8, 2001, P.L.123, No.18, effective July 1, 2001. Prior Provisions. Former Division 5, which related to the same subject matter, was added November 1, 1979, P.L.255, No.86, and repealed June 8, 2001, P.L.123, No.18, effective July 1, 2001.

Status: in_force · Read it on the official government site

Need a lawyer in Pennsylvania?

Find a Pennsylvania lawyer
About this page: Statute text is reproduced from official government publishers via the Open US Law dataset (Vaquill AI, snapshot v2026.08, CC BY 4.0). Primary legislative text like this is public domain under the government-edicts doctrine (Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). We link every section back to its official source so you can verify it independently.