Imagine you receive an email from a known creditor containing an invoice for an account payable. The email contains instructions for
Whether a purchaser is
justified or excused from paying a seller due to a fraudulently intercepted ACH
payment will ultimately depend on:
• Whether the seller took reasonable steps to secure or maintain
its email system;
• Whether the seller knew, or should have
known, that its email system had been compromised;
• Whether the purchaser took reasonable
steps to verify the bank account information before attempting to pay the
seller; and
• Whether the seller knew or should have
known that the email and correspondence was fraudulent.
The case involved a
breach of contract lawsuit for the sale of eggs. At the beginning of the
parties’ contractual relationship, the seller required the purchaser to enter
into an ACH Agreement that provided the terms under which the purchaser would
pay the seller for the eggs. The ACH Agreement specified the bank account
belonging to the seller and authorized the purchaser to make deposits into that
account for payment of the seller’s invoices.
The parties’ contractual
relationship was at first uneventful. The seller delivered eggs to the
purchaser, and the purchaser paid the seller for the eggs pursuant to the terms
of the ACH Agreement. Roughly one-year into the parties’ contractual
relationship, however, the purchaser received an email that appeared to be from
the seller’s email account stating that the seller’s bank account was changing
and that the purchaser would receive new ACH payment instructions. Notably, the
correspondence attached to the new ACH payment instructions incorrectly
identified the seller’s address, contained at least one additional
typographical error, and was not personally addressed or signed.
The purchaser did not
require a new ACH Agreement and did not follow up with a telephone call to the
seller to verify the bank account in the new ACH payment instructions. For the
next three months, the purchaser made nine deposits totaling almost one million
dollars into the new bank account, completely unaware that this account was in
fact controlled by third-party hackers, not the seller. The purchaser became
aware of the fraud only after the seller made demand upon the delinquent
account.
When the purchaser failed
to cure the delinquent account, the seller sued for breach of contract. In
defense, the purchaser argued that its failure to pay the seller was justified.
An associate at Rudoph
Friedmann LLP, Sean Cullen has more than 15 years of litigation experience. He
has a successful track record in state and federal court defending against
claims for alleged violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost
Disclosure Act (MCCCDA), the Fair Debt Collections Practice Act (FDCPA), and
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA). Sean has represented secured
creditors in title curative actions and bankruptcy proceedings, as well as in
post-foreclosure summary process actions – many of which were heavily contested
by former owners arguing the foreclosure sale was unlawfully conducted. Sean can be contacted at scullen@rflawyers.com.