So, with Quenta pizza the double booked contract sent twice in honor of my older cousin and processed automatically twice on a credit facility shouldn't sit unchecked. It costs the bank and the customer is not to pay for it as a system error but the client error is the question. Who pays? The untrained clerk at Roy Rogers may not have a chance to get a 'higher up' in sufficient time to verify if two orders worth more than euro 200,000.00 each are required by the client organisation but as clerks should be able to verify against the contracts they are paying to Mr. Patel Layacak with whom they will rendezvous at Gatwick. Either, you need it or you don't. But,when the client cannot verify the immediate need for two orders of currency contrary to usual purchasing habits maybe, as suggested some time ago in Londinium Book, the pizza company taking the orders will allow one order on the pizza company 's credit and the client will have to send immediate payment for the second order that will stay in pending status until actual payment is received from the client or they will not just cancel the second order that appears to be a duplicate order. This is because the credit is the pizza company's money. If the order is not needed but is put through erroneously and paid for in the pizza company's books with their cash as credit to the client, it could be a waste of dough..and cash although you could sell the pizza to someone else. As a matter of analogy, what if the order is at a bank for billions dollars of dough..or foreign currency? The order that appears to be a duplicate should be put in a pending status until approved by the client's employee with appropriate signing authority and not just a A/P manager who may not be fully aware of the ramifications of two orders being processed in error and it is helpful to have staff working for the bank who is cognisant of the existence of two orders for currency sent in by fax modem transmissions for currency but only one f/x order or contract was booked with the trader for the amount. The transmissions are not contracts and if the client needed 3 billion dollars of currency, the contract rate would have reflected 3 billion but the contract is for 1.5 billion. The second order is a duplicate at an additional 1.5 billion. The client really only ordered 4 pizzas ; not 8 pizzas. It is helpful to have a process to prevent the unnecessary burden of error on the bank's books that is difficult to amend when loss occurs quite likely on the bank's position on day one since the currency is actually bought on one side just as it is being sold. The system check will catch the apparently duplicated order appearing on the system with same rate, amount and currency within the last 11 days; for example. Please contact Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM) for our Consulting solutions in Businsess and Law. Go to http://angelronan.wixsite.com/servicesconsulting

So, with Quenta pizza the double booked contract sent twice in honor of my older cousin and processed automatically twice on a credit facility shouldn't sit unchecked.  It costs the bank and the customer is not to pay for  it as a system error but the client error is the question. Who pays?  The untrained clerk at Roy Rogers may not have a chance to get a 'higher up' in sufficient time to verify if two orders worth more than euro 200,000.00 each are required by the client organisation but as clerks should be able to verify against the contracts they are paying to Mr. Patel Layacak with whom they will rendezvous at Gatwick.   Either,  you need it or you don't.  But,when the client cannot verify the immediate need for two orders of currency contrary to usual purchasing habits maybe, as suggested some time ago in Londinium Book, the pizza company taking the orders will allow one order  on the pizza company 's credit and the client  will have to send immediate payment for the second order that will stay in pending status until actual payment is received from the client or they will not just cancel the second order that appears to be a duplicate order.   This is because the credit is the pizza company's money.   If the order is not needed but is put through erroneously and paid for in the pizza company's  books with their cash as credit to the client, it could be a waste of dough..and cash although you could sell the pizza to someone else. As  a matter of analogy, what if the order is at a bank for billions dollars of dough..or foreign currency?  The order that appears to be a duplicate should be put in a pending status until approved by the client's employee with appropriate signing authority and not just a A/P manager who may not be fully aware of the ramifications of two orders being processed in error and it is helpful to have staff working for the bank who is cognisant of the existence of two orders for currency sent in by fax modem transmissions for currency but only one f/x order or contract  was booked with the trader for the amount.    The transmissions are not contracts and if the client needed 3 billion dollars of currency, the contract rate would have reflected 3 billion but the contract is for 1.5 billion.  The second order is a duplicate at an additional 1.5 billion. The client really only ordered 4 pizzas ; not 8 pizzas.    It is helpful to have a process to prevent the unnecessary burden of error on the bank's books that is difficult to amend when loss occurs quite likely on the bank's position on day one since the currency is actually bought on one side just as it is being sold.  The system check will catch the apparently duplicated order appearing on the system with same rate, amount and currency within the last 11 days; for example.  Please contact Angel Ronan Lex Scripta(TM) for our Consulting solutions in Businsess and Law.   Go to http://angelronan.wixsite.com/servicesconsulting