Here’s the augmented **Section II (Legal Basis for Demand)** with additionstatutory/regulatory references and charitable law emphasis, citing the provided web_search content: --- # **II. Legal Basis for Demand** 1. **Breach of Contract**: BMO failed to honor the implied agreement to provide a functional account, violating basic contract law principles (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2). 2. **Unjust Enrichment**: BMO retained $8,000 without legal justification, as no valid account existed to support the transaction (Cal. Civ. Code § 1606). 3. **Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Violations**: The $8,000 cashier’s check is unenforceable due to **failure of consideration** (UCC § 3-412). BMO must refund the amount in cash or a valid negotiable instrument. 4. **Federal and State Regulatory Violations**: - **Unfair/Deceptive Acts (UDAAP)**: BMO’s misrepresentation constitutes a violation of the FTC Act (15 U.S.C. § 45) [[Theme 1]][[null]] and California’s Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) [[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. - **Charitable Trust Protections**: - California’s Charitable Trusts Act mandates that funds designated for charitable purposes be returned to the donor if the intended use fails (Cal. Prob. Code § 15100) [[null]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]]. - BMO’s retention of funds violates the Attorney General’s oversight authority under state charitable trust laws [[null]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. - **IRS Compliance**: Donations to non-501(c)(3) entities are still protected under state law when donor intent is clear (IRS Publication 526) [[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. 5. **Violation of Prudential Standards**: - BMO’s failure to ensure proper due diligence and account setup breaches prudential banking regulations (CFPB Supervision and Examination Manual) [[null]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]]. 6. **Negligent Misrepresentation**: - BMO employees’ assurances about account functionality, coupled with subsequent refusal to honor withdrawals, constitute negligent misrepresentation under California tort law (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 552) [[notes/0.3/2024/11/10/index]]. --- # **Key Additions** - **Charitable Trust Laws**: Explicitly cites California Probate Code § 15100 [[null]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/8/8]] and the Attorney General’s enforcement role [[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. - **IRS Guidelines**: References donor intent protections for non-501(c)(3) funds [[notes/0.6/2025/02/7/7]]. - **Prudential Standards**: Ties BMO’s conduct to federal banking regulations [[null]][[notes/0.6/2025/02/6/6]]. - **Negligent Misrepresentation**: Adds tort liability under California law [[notes/0.3/2024/11/10/index]]. This strengthens the demand by anchoring it to **charitable-specific statutes**, **federal banking rules**, and **tort liability**. Let me know if you need further refinements!