The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is a model code jointly developed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL, also known as the Uniform Law Commission) and the American Law Institute (ALI). It has no independent legal force or effect until enacted by a state legislature. Once adopted, the UCC becomes binding as that state’s commercial statute, enforced as positive statutory law of the enacting jurisdiction, not as a uniform law per se. See In re Phillips, 966 F.2d 926, 934 (5th Cir. 1992) (“The UCC has been adopted in Texas and thus constitutes Texas law.”); see also United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 727 (1979) (noting that the UCC “is not itself federal law but rather a model code”). Therefore, commercial law is enforceable only to the extent it is enacted by the state and codified in its statutes. For example, in Texas, the UCC has been adopted and codified in the Texas Business and Commerce Code, and it is that code—not the UCC in abstract—that carries legal effect. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 1.101 (“This title may be cited as the Uniform Commercial Code”).
THAT BEING SAID:
Each remittance coupon attached to a bill—such as the ones you may receive from cell phone provider, or utility company, &c.—constitutes a legally recognizable remittance instrument under 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-1. This coupon evidences the amount due, the account number, the remittance address, and typically includes a barcode or MICR line enabling machine-processed settlement. Once received, the coupon’s form and structure indicate it has transferable value. Under commercial accounting treatment, the recipient (debtor) may post the coupon to their ledger as a liability notice (ASC 450-20), then reclassify it to a short-term note payable (ASC 470-10) upon drawing a matching Bill of Exchange. The Bill of Exchange, issued against the remittance coupon and presented in accordance with UCC § 3-310(b), suspends the obligation and may ultimately discharge the liability if not dishonored. This reclassification is reflected in the books as derecognition of the original liability under ASC 405-20-40-1, achieving lawful settlement by means of commercial instrumentality.
While a remittance coupon is not legal tender, it functions as a bearer voucher representing a defined payment obligation, typically issued by a creditor and indexed to a specific account. Under accepted accounting principles, its value may be recognized as a ledgered liability which—when paired with a duly executed Bill of Exchange (BOE)—may be reclassified as a book-entry instrument of payment, not merely a promise to pay. The BOE, in this context, does not merely suspend the obligation pursuant to UCC § 3-310(b); rather, it satisfies the obligation to the extent that it is honored. The remittance coupon, evidencing the original debt and account details, provides the economic source and authorization for reclassification. Once reclassified on the issuer’s ledger, the BOE serves as the legal settlement mechanism, meeting both the form and substance of a lawful commercial discharge. In accordance with FASB ASC 405-20-40-1, the liability is derecognized upon acceptance and delivery of the BOE, provided the BOE is not dishonored. Thus, the coupon’s transferable value—when converted and recorded properly—operates as the foundation for payment, not merely as collateral or conditional tender, making the act of reclassification and issuance a complete transaction under commercial and accounting law.
Many utility bills, credit statements, and service invoices include a detachable payment coupon with a perforated edge, machine-readable encoding, account number, and remittance instructions. Under federal law, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-1 and Regulation E (12 C.F.R. § 1005.30), this detachable portion qualifies as a “remittance transfer instrument.” When a consumer tenders payment using this instrument—whether by check, money order, or Bill of Exchange—the transfer initiates a remittance transaction governed by strict disclosure and error-resolution requirements imposed on the service provider. These federal requirements include mandatory itemization of currency received, transaction fees, exchange rates (if applicable), and refund procedures for rejected or mishandled transfers.
At BuildaBOE.com, we recognize that these payment coupons form the legal foundation for structured remittance. Our platform provides tools that empower users to generate properly constructed Bills of Exchange that can be lawfully tendered with remittance coupons, consistent with 15 U.S.C. § 1693o-1, Public Law 106-229 (Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act), and UCC § 3-310(b). This process facilitates lawful suspension or discharge of the underlying obligation when the instrument is not dishonored, triggering the rights and remedies available under both federal and commercial law.
Federal statutes governing remittance instruments—specifically those codified under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (15 U.S.C. § 1693 et seq.)—preempt inconsistent state provisions and define the legal status of remittance coupons, which are routinely attached to utility, telecom, and credit billing statements. When a coupon is tendered with a corresponding negotiable instrument, such as a Bill of Exchange, the transaction invokes protections under UCC § 3.310(b) (as adopted in Texas) and federal regulatory requirements concerning remittance disclosures and acceptance protocols.
In this context, the Court is not being asked to enforce a federal cause of action per se, but to issue a declaration under the statute for declarations confirming that:
(1) a remittance coupon qualifies as a remittance transfer under federal law;
(2) the coupon constitutes a financial document that may be used as part of a valid tender of payment through a Bill of Exchange; and
(3) that any dishonor of such remittance when properly presented and recorded constitutes a legal injury or unresolved controversy warranting declaratory relief.
Thus, the federal law is invoked not as a standalone claim but as controlling authority to construe the nature, legal effect, and enforceability of the instruments tendered in line with both federal preemption doctrine and the several State’s own codification of the Uniform Commercial Code.
A Bill of Exchange is a draft as defined under UCC § 3-104(e) and is drawn to order payment of a fixed sum of money. When vendors issue payment coupons requiring physical return with payment, these coupons create transferable payment rights that can be returned through a properly drawn bill of exchange. Under this structure, the vendor who issued the coupon becomes both the drawee (the party ordered to pay) and the payee (the party to receive payment), reflecting the commercial reality that they created an instrument requiring physical surrender for payment processing. This configuration follows from the vendor’s own requirement that the coupon be “detached and returned,” implying the coupon embodies economic value that must be physically transferred back to complete the payment transaction.
In modern commerce, Bills of Exchange function as negotiable instruments under UCC Art. 3. When vendors issue payment coupons with instructions to “detach and return this portion with payment,” they create documents that must be physically surrendered as part of the payment process. This physical return requirement distinguishes payment coupons from mere payment instructions or remittance advice.
The legal principle follows from the vendor’s own commercial practice: requiring physical return of a coupon acknowledges that the coupon itself plays a necessary role in the payment process. A Bill of Exchange drawn on the vendor as both drawee and payee operates to formally return the payment rights embodied in their coupon through a negotiable instrument. Under UCC § 3-410, presentment of this instrument constitutes a demand for payment that triggers specific legal obligations and timelines for acceptance or dishonor.
Under UCC § 3-103(a)(5) the drawer is the person ordering payment, which in this application is you or your business entity. The drawee, defined under UCC § 3-103(a)(4) as the person ordered to make payment, is the vendor who issued the payment coupon. The payee under UCC § 3-110 is also the vendor, as they are the person entitled to enforce the instrument and receive payment.
This party structure aligns with liability extinguishment principles whereby the debtor’s payment to the creditor satisfies the recorded obligation. See FASB ASC 405-20-40-1. The vendor’s dual role as both drawee and payee reflects their position as the entity recording the receivable on their books and the party entitled to receive payment for balance sheet settlement. Under R2C § 281(1), an accord is “a contract under which an obligee promises to accept a stated performance in satisfaction of the obligor’s existing duty.” The vendor’s payment coupon system, requiring physical coupon return for payment processing, establishes the stated performance method for settling the accounts payable/receivable relationship. This requirement creates a bargained-for exchange under § 71(2), where the vendor seeks return of the physical coupon as a condition for crediting the customer’s account. The debtor’s act of returning the coupon constitutes performance under § 71(3)(a) as “an act other than a promise,” providing consideration for the payment application. From an accounting perspective, the vendor’s system creates a two-step settlement process: first, the tender of the payment coupon suspends the original obligation pending processing; second, upon the vendor’s acceptance and processing, the receivable is extinguished through standard journal entries debiting cash and crediting accounts receivable. This coupon-based settlement mechanism, when satisfied through proper Bill of Exchange tender, results in discharge of the recorded obligation pursuant to § 281(1), allowing both parties to clear the transaction from their respective books.
The negotiable instrument must specify the exact dollar amount listed on the associated payment coupon in strict compliance with UCC § 3-104(a), codified in Texas as Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.104(a), which requires that a negotiable instrument contain an “unconditional promise or order to pay a fixed amount of money.” The inclusion of both the coupon number and the billing cycle or period on the face of the instrument provides a sufficient referential connection to the underlying debt obligation. This satisfies the requirement under UCC § 3-108, codified in Texas as Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.108, which mandates that an instrument be “payable on demand or at a definite time.” The specificity of the reference—by identifying the corresponding coupon and period—does not render the promise conditional under § 3.106(a), so long as payment is not contingent upon any extrinsic fact or event.
From an accounting perspective, this clear referential linkage to the coupon and billing period aligns with FASB ASC 310-10-35-8, (310-10-35-8is superseded by Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-13) which provides that the subsequent measurement of receivables must reflect the current expectation of cash flows based on known data points, including billings and payment behavior. Therefore, the fixed amount stated in the instrument and its tie to a defined billing period ensures the instrument represents a specific and measurable financial asset both under commercial law and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
The instrument’s enforceability further depends on its integration with the underlying obligation, which must be ascertainable from the face of the instrument or incorporated by reference. Under UCC § 3-106(a) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.106(a)), a promise or order is unconditional unless it states (i) an express condition to payment, (ii) that the promise or order is subject to or governed by another record, or (iii) that rights or obligations with respect to the promise or order are stated in another record. Accordingly, any reference to external documents—such as an invoice or coupon—must be limited to identification purposes only, without conditioning payment on such documents. Additionally, identification of the vendor’s payment coupon by number and billing period satisfies the requirement for certainty of terms and supports the fixed amount of money condition under UCC § 3-104(a)(1). This structure also aligns with FASB ASC 310-10-35-8, which addresses measurement of receivables by requiring that the entity evaluate the present value of expected cash flows, thus necessitating a clear linkage between the instrument and the originating receivable.
Precision in completing a negotiable instrument is governed by UCC § 3-114(a) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.114(a)), which provides: “If an instrument contains contradictory terms, typewritten terms prevail over printed terms, handwritten terms prevail over both, and words prevail over numbers.” Accordingly, where the amount is stated both numerically and in words, the written words control in the event of a conflict, and both formats must match the amount shown on the creditor’s payment coupon to preserve enforceability.
Reference to a specific coupon number and billing cycle enables identification of the underlying receivable, as required by FASB ASC 310-10-45-2, which mandates clarity in the presentation of loan-level balances and disclosure of terms. This level of specificity also ensures conformity with FASB ASC 105-10-05-3, which underscores the need for systematic, consistent application of accounting principles and policies across financial reporting periods. The use of sequential numbering for each instrument provides traceability and supports internal control structures necessary for audit integrity, satisfying both GAO-14-704G (Green Book) internal control standards and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).
Upon issuance, the negotiable instrument constitutes a substitute performance governed by UCC § 3-310(b) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.310(b)), which provides that if a note or draft is taken for an obligation, the obligation is suspended to the extent of the instrument’s amount until the instrument is dishonored or paid. If the instrument is not dishonored, the obligation is discharged, effectuating a legal satisfaction of the debt. This statutory suspension aligns with R2C § 281(1), recognizing an accord where the obligee agrees to accept a different performance (i.e., the negotiable instrument) in satisfaction of an existing duty.
From an accounting standpoint, the tender of such an instrument—if accepted and not dishonored—triggers derecognition of the corresponding liability under FASB ASC 405-20-40-1, which states that “a liability shall be removed from the balance sheet when… it is extinguished by the debtor either paying the creditor or being legally released.” The issuance of a properly executed negotiable instrument referencing the specific payment coupon, when accepted without objection or return, constitutes a constructive legal release consistent with UCC mechanisms and derecognition standards under GAAP.
Accordingly, where the creditor’s policies or practices include routine acceptance of such instruments—especially when tied to internal remittance coupons—this creates a course of performance under UCC § 1-303(a) and a commercially reasonable expectation that the tender discharges the debt, barring explicit dishonor.
UCC § 3-501(b)(1) requires presentment to be made at the place of payment specified in the instrument or, if none is specified, at the address of the drawee. When payment coupons specify a remittance address, that address constitutes the designated place of payment under UCC § 3-111. Presentment to any other address may constitute improper presentment under UCC § 3-501(b)(3), providing valid grounds for dishonor.
For domestic transactions, UCC § 3-501(b)(2) permits presentment by any commercially reasonable means including mail. Certified mail with return receipt requested satisfies the documentation requirements of UCC § 3-503(a), which mandates that presentment be evidenced by a record. The return receipt establishes both the date of presentment under UCC § 3-502(e) and compliance with the three-business day deadline for sight drafts specified in UCC § 3-502(a)(2).
Electronic presentment of a negotiable instrument is authorized under UCC § 3-501(b)(2)(C), codified in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.501(b)(2)(C), which provides that presentment may be made “by any commercially reasonable means, including an electronic medium,” if agreed upon by the party to whom presentment is made. This authority is consistent with Rest. (2nd) of Contracts § 30(2), which states that “[u]nless otherwise indicated by the language or the circumstances, an offer invites acceptance in any manner and by any medium reasonable in the circumstances,” thereby validating tender through established electronic payment portals when such means have been either expressly agreed upon or implied through course of dealing or usage of trade. In cross-border transactions, UCC § 3-501(b)(3) authorizes presentment “through a clearinghouse or similar medium,” which comports with Articles 49 and 50 of the United Nations Convention on International Bills of Exchange and International Promissory Notes (UNCITRAL, 1988). These articles permit presentment for acceptance, particularly where the drawer so stipulates, where the bill is payable after sight, or where the bill is payable at a location other than the drawee’s residence. Although the United States has not adopted the Convention, it reflects widespread commercial norms. Article 49(1) allows presentment for acceptance generally; Article 49(2) mandates it in specific circumstances; and Article 50 permits the drawer to restrict or prohibit early presentment. Therefore, electronic presentment, when agreed upon by the parties or established by trade usage, is consistent with both U.S. law and international practice. Where accepted, the drawee must signify acceptance in writing on the bill per Article 41, and once accepted, the drawee becomes obligated to pay as provided in Article 40. Such acceptance must be unconditional pursuant to Article 43, and any qualified or partial acceptance may constitute dishonor in part. As such, commercial parties employing electronic systems or clearinghouse channels for presentment remain in compliance so long as these conditions of form, timing, and method are met.
Record retention requirements under FASB ASC 105-10-05-3 emphasize the necessity for consistency in the application of accounting principles and require that financial reporting be supported by verifiable documentation. While ASC 105 does not prescribe specific retention periods, it establishes a foundational expectation that sufficient documentation exists to substantiate accounting policies, assumptions, and transactions. For negotiable instruments, UCC § 3-309(a) (codified in Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.309(a)) allows enforcement of a lost, destroyed, or stolen instrument only if the claimant can prove (i) the terms of the instrument and (ii) the facts of the loss, and must also establish entitlement to enforce. Thus, retention of original instruments is essential to prevent evidentiary failure.
Additionally, the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (GAO-14-704G), specifically Section OV2.06, mandates that “[i]f management determines that a principle is not relevant, management supports that determination with documentation that includes the rationale for how, in the absence of that principle, the associated component could be designed, implemented, and operated effectively.” This requirement underscores the broader obligation that documentation of transactions must be sufficiently detailed to support management’s assertions in financial reporting—specifically, with regard to reliability, validity, and completeness. Accordingly, both GAAP (for private-sector entities) and internal control frameworks for public-sector entities demand rigorous document retention and control procedures governing negotiable instruments and related financial entries. Negotiable instruments, including remittance coupons or Bills of Exchange, must be preserved and recorded to satisfy both private-sector (GAAP) and public-sector (FMFIA-based) accountability standards.
In layman’s terms, Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) is a U.S. federal law that requires government agencies to set up proper internal controls—meaning systems and procedures—to prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and accounting errors.
The law says agencies must:
- Make sure their financial reports are accurate.
- Keep records that prove how money is being spent.
- Set up checks and balances to protect public funds.
- Report every year whether their systems are working or broken.
FMFIA is the reason why the GAO’s “Green Book” (GAO-14-704G) exists. That Green Book provides the detailed standards agencies must follow to comply with FMFIA. So if you’re using, or quoting GAO-14-704G, you’re working directly within the framework created by FMFIA.
Under UCC § 3-503(a) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.503(a)), a negotiable instrument is dishonored when presentment is either refused or not responded to within the time permitted for acceptance or payment. Dishonor must be evidenced by a “record,” as defined in UCC § 1-201(b)(31) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 1.201(b)(31)), which includes tangible or electronic documentation such as certified mail receipts or tracking confirmations. To preserve enforceability, the tendering party must adhere to presentment timing standards under UCC § 3-502(a) and issue notice of dishonor within 30 days of dishonor per UCC § 3-503(c) (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 3.503(c)).
Under the R2C § 238, “[w]here all or part of the performances to be exchanged under an exchange of promises are due simultaneously, it is a condition of each party’s duties to render such performance that the other party either render or, with manifested present ability to do so, offer performance of his part of the simultaneous exchange.” Accordingly, if a party tenders a payment instrument (such as a check, promissory note, or Bill of Exchange) in satisfaction of a contractual obligation and the counterparty refuses to accept the tender without proper justification or dishonor procedure, the refusing party breaches the contract. Such conduct preserves the rights of the tendering party to enforce the agreement or pursue appropriate legal remedies.
This principle is reinforced by the UCC’s treatment of tender and dishonor under UCC §§ 3-501(b)(2) (“Upon dishonor of an instrument… the holder may recover”) and § 3-502(a), as well as by the federal requirement of good faith and fair dealing in commercial transactions.
Documentation of the presentment, refusal, and improper dishonor is legally consequential, as it establishes the tendering party’s compliance and the recipient’s breach. Supporting laws include UCC § 3-502, which defines dishonor, requiring specific conditions for non-payment, and UCC § 3-503, which mandates timely notice of dishonor within 30 days, stating: “Notice of dishonor is sufficient if it reasonably identifies the instrument and indicates that the instrument has been dishonored… [and] must be given within 30 days following the day on which dishonor occurs.” Their retention without returning the instrument prevents proper dishonor from occurring, while their failure to provide notice within 30 days waives any right to dishonor. Additionally, R2C § 238 establishes that where performances are due simultaneously, each party’s duty is conditioned on the other’s tender of performance. Their failure to tender proper dishonor (by returning the instrument with valid statutory grounds) excuses your duty to pay by alternative means. This improper dishonor constitutes a material breach under R2C § 241, considering the deprivation of expected benefits and lack of good faith (R2C §§ 238, 241 (Am. Law Inst. 1981)).
A repudiation, as defined in RSC § 250(b), comprises “a voluntary affirmative act which renders the obligor unable or apparently unable to perform without such a breach.” This standard encompasses both express anticipatory breach and conduct amounting to constructive nonperformance and is legally operative upon objective manifestation of intent to forgo future contractual duties.
FASB ASC 405-20-40-1 governs derecognition of liabilities. Under FASB ASC 470-10-25-2, the issuance of a Bill of Exchange (BOE) requires the recognition of a note payable at its face amount, mandating a reclassification of the original trade payable into a distinct liability reflecting the formalization of the obligation into a negotiable instrument. The appropriate journal entry debits Accounts Payable and credits Notes Payable – Bills of Exchange, ensuring compliance with ASC 210-10-45-5, which prohibits the aggregation of liabilities with significantly different characteristics on a single balance sheet line. Consistent with ASC 210-10-45-6 through 45-12, such an instrument is generally classified as a current liability when the obligation is expected to be liquidated within twelve months, arises from the operating cycle, or involves callable or demand features. If, however, the BOE is contractually linked to long-term deferments or financing arrangements not tied to the immediate operating cycle, it may be classified as a noncurrent obligation. Regardless of term, the liability must be separately stated from trade accounts due to its legal negotiability, payment structure, and enforceability under U.C.C. Article 3, particularly when coupled with presentment and dishonor procedures under §§ 3-501 and 3-502. Failure to make such proper classification and disclosure may misstate both liquidity and financial leverage positions on the balance sheet, thereby violating the presentation and recognition principles articulated across ASC 470, ASC 210, and SEC Regulation S-X, particularly Rule 5-02, which governs the face presentation and disaggregation of financial statement line items for commercial and industrial companies. Furthermore, Regulation S-X Rule 4-01 mandates adherence to U.S. GAAP in all material respects, while Rule 4-08 requires detailed disclosure of liability classifications, asset encumbrances, and related-party obligations within the notes to the financial statements. These provisions, reinforced by Sarbanes–Oxley Act requirements and Final Rule 33-8183, underscore the necessity for integrity, auditor independence, and comprehensive financial transparency when recording and presenting structured liabilities such as BOEs within SEC filings.
In other words, when a Bill of Exchange (BOE) is issued to settle a trade payable, the original liability is reclassified from Accounts Payable to Notes Payable – Bills of Exchange in accordance with FASB ASC 470-10-25-2, which mandates recognition of a note payable at face value. This reclassification must adhere to the presentation guidance in FASB ASC 210-10-45-5, requiring that liabilities with significantly different characteristics be separately disclosed on the balance sheet. Where the BOE matures within twelve months or is directly tied to the operating cycle, it must be classified as a current liability under FASB ASC 210-10-45-6 through 45-9, while obligations falling outside that scope—such as long-term financing instruments or deferred liabilities not tied to operational output—must be treated as noncurrent. If the BOE is dishonored upon presentment, FASB ASC 405-20-40-2 prohibits derecognition of the liability unless the specific extinguishment criteria in ASC 405-20-40-1 are met, thereby requiring reversal of the original journal entry and reinstatement of the Accounts Payable balance. In situations where the validity of the underlying obligation is contested—whether due to dispute, fraud, or repudiation—the accounting must conform to FASB ASC 450-20-25-2, which requires accrual of a loss contingency if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the loss amount can be reasonably estimated. Such reclassification to a disputed obligation must preserve the integrity of financial statement presentation by avoiding improper offsetting or aggregation, as reinforced by ASC 210-10-45-1. Furthermore, consistent application of these principles is mandated by FASB ASC 250-10-45-1, which prohibits changes in accounting treatment absent justification and appropriate disclosure. Where a right of setoff exists due to mutual obligations, such classification must reflect the legal nature of the obligation and be segregated per SEC Regulation S-X, Rule 5-02, which governs the disaggregation and line-item specificity of financial statement classifications. The resulting presentation shall reflect any asset valuation allowances mandated under FASB ASC 210-10-45-13 and the financial statements must include all material disclosures necessary to avoid rendering the statements misleading by omission, consistent with the requirements of Regulation S-X, Rule 4-01(a)(1).
Disclaimer: The following content contains excerpts from copyrighted materials published by the Financial Accounting Foundation (FAF) d/b/a Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) and Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH, c/o Thomson Reuters U.S. LLC. These materials are reproduced strictly for non-commercial, educational, and informational purposes in accordance with 17 U.S.C. § 107 (Fair Use). All proprietary rights, including copyright and trademark, remain the exclusive property of FASB and Thomson Reuters, respectively. No part of this material is distributed for profit or public dissemination beyond the scope of permitted use. Any further reproduction, distribution, or commercial exploitation without the express written consent of the respective rights holders is strictly prohibited. For official terms and permissions, consult the Copyright Information | FASB ASC and Copyright Contact Information | Thomson Reuters pages.