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. Is it a client error or a system error? It is a system error and Quenta Pizza or any Pizza dough business has to be prepared for the likelihood of client errors that may involve sending transmissions of orders twice or maybe three times in error. But, the transmissions are not contracts. 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 for the new special Cornish hen meal and the 1.6 million hens to be ordered from France to prepare for the new menu item but as clerks, they 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 the currency or you don't. Either you know you sent 3 transmissions or you don't while there is only one contract booked for Euro 200,000.00 rather evidently. 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 where the credit is the pizza company's cash really 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 just cancel the second order that appears to be a duplicate order and is verified by the client as a duplicate or maybe they won't as the client might pay for it in advance of next month's order to pay the same supplier for the same quantity of supply when the Pizza company's customer service specialist suggests this option. This is because the credit is the pizza company's money and we cannot expose the position wildly. It is important to slow this down and nor should we think about the messenger of this solution as systems are designed for the bank's confident delivery of service and then it can be improved; just like an engine; right Crystal ? Crystal is cockney for clarity by the way. If the order is not needed but is put through erroneously and paid for in the pizza company's books with pizza company's cash as credit to the client, it could be a waste of dough..and cash although you could sell the pizza to someone else maybe if the rate isn't evidently too far off an ever changing market position. As a matter of analogy, what if the order is at a bank for billions of dollars of dough with dough as the colloquial term for money or foreign currency here? The order that appears to be a duplicate should be put in a pending status automatically by the system once it is input under the customer's number and will stay in pending status until verified and 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 on the bank's side yet it is helpful to have staff working for the bank who is cognizant of the existence of two orders for currency sent in by fax modem transmissions or through an internet portal for currency but only one f/x order or contract was booked with the trader for the amount; not two. The transmissions are not contracts. Only one order of currency is needed but when transmitted twice in error , it appears to be a request for two orders in the processing. If the client needed 3 billion dollars of currency, the contract rate would have reflected 3 billion but the contract and rate booked with the trader is for 1.5 billion. The second transmission is not an order or request for a contract but is a duplicate certainly; an erroneous transmission at an additional 1.5 billion but what is the intention when it is apparently, a duplicate? The intention has to be verified. This is where the bank's customer contact is involved to verify the second apparently duplicate order but the order should not be processable on credit and nor should it be processed when it is apparently, certainly a duplicate. The system will pend the order until a management override is satisfied following written confirmation for the client as to their intention concerning the second transmission. They will either confirm they want the currency order processed or to remain unprocessed and the transmission deleted and removed from the pending cue as deleted. School Book agent order terminals have such systems in place. 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 if the transmission is processed as an order of currency quite likely as a loss on the bank's position on day one if it had to be cancelled as an error since the currency is actually bought on one side just as it is being sold. The system check in the IBM AS 400 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 Business and Law. Go to http://angelronan.wixsite.com/servicesconsulting Ask for Warren A. Lyon who proposed such a system more than 8 years ago to Bank of America to avoid a regularising of such double booking fiascos so that they would never ever occur. We have control. We have a report of pending, apparently double booked contracts for customer service to address and not a report of unredeemed currency orders only that reflected mostly erroneously booked contracts. Both reports might be helpful once the more significant problem of erroneously booked contracts is extrapolated from the situation when they should not have been booked at all on the basis of transmissions sent in error more than once on an order system only.

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. Is it a client error or a system error? It is a system error and Quenta Pizza or any Pizza dough business has to be prepared for the likelihood of client errors that may involve sending transmissions of orders twice or maybe three times in error. But, the transmissions are not contracts. 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 for the new special Cornish hen meal and the 1.6 million hens to be ordered from France to prepare for the new menu item but as clerks, they 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 the currency or you don't. Either you know you sent 3 transmissions or you don't while there is only one contract booked for Euro 200,000.00 rather evidently.   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 where the credit is the pizza company's cash really 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 just cancel the second order that appears to be a duplicate order and is verified by the client as a duplicate or maybe they won't as the client might pay for it in advance of next month's order to pay the same supplier for the same quantity of supply when the Pizza company's customer service specialist suggests this option.  This is because the credit is the pizza company's money and we cannot expose the position wildly. It is important to slow this down and nor should we think about the messenger of this solution as systems are designed for the bank's confident delivery of service and then it can be improved; just like an engine; right Crystal ?   Crystal is cockney for clarity by the way.  If the order is not needed but is put through erroneously and paid for in the pizza company's  books with pizza company's cash as credit to the client, it could be a waste of dough..and cash although you could sell the pizza to someone else maybe if the rate isn't evidently too far off an ever changing market position. As  a matter of analogy, what if the order is at a bank for billions of dollars of dough with dough as the colloquial term for money or foreign currency here?  The order that appears to be a duplicate should be put in a pending status automatically by the system once it is input under the customer's number and will stay in pending status until verified and 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 on the bank's side yet it is helpful to have staff working for the bank who is cognizant of the existence of two orders for currency sent in by fax modem transmissions or through an internet portal for currency but only one f/x order or contract  was booked with the trader for the amount; not two.     The transmissions are not contracts. Only one order of currency is needed but when transmitted twice in error , it appears to be a request for two orders in the processing. If the client needed 3 billion dollars of currency, the contract rate would have reflected 3 billion but the contract and rate booked with the trader is for 1.5 billion.  The second transmission is not an order or request for a contract but is a duplicate certainly; an erroneous transmission at an additional 1.5 billion but what is the intention when it is apparently, a duplicate? The intention has to be verified. This is where the bank's customer contact is involved to verify the second apparently duplicate order but the order should not be processable on credit and nor should it be processed when it is apparently, certainly a duplicate. The system will pend the order until a management override is satisfied following written confirmation for the client as to their intention concerning the second transmission. They will either confirm they want the currency order processed or to remain unprocessed and the transmission deleted and removed from the pending cue as deleted. School Book agent order terminals have such systems in place. 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 if the transmission is processed as an order of currency quite likely as a loss on the bank's position on day one if it had to be cancelled as an error since the currency is actually bought on one side just as it is being sold.  The system check in the IBM AS 400 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 Business and Law.   Go to http://angelronan.wixsite.com/servicesconsulting  Ask for Warren A. Lyon who proposed such a system more than 8 years ago to Bank of America to avoid a regularising of such double booking fiascos so that they would never ever occur. We have control. We have a report of pending, apparently double booked contracts for customer service to address and not a report of unredeemed currency orders only that reflected mostly erroneously booked contracts. Both reports might be helpful once the more significant problem of erroneously booked contracts is extrapolated from the situation when they should not have been booked at all on the basis of transmissions sent in error more than once on an order system only.