Abdul Matin returned from a lengthy trip abroad and discovered that an unknown person had used forged checks to empty his account at Chase Manhattan Bank. The person forged a change-of-address card, which caused the bank to send the monthly statements to a different address. Upon returning to the United States, Matin demanded that the bank reimburse him for his losses, and when the bank refused, he sued to recover his damages. Chase Manhattan claimed that Matin did not inform it of the forged signatures until more than one year after the issuance of the statements and therefore it is not liable. What is the general rule under the UCC regarding who is liable when a forged check is not reported within one year? Were there any special circumstances in this case that would lead the court to not uphold this general rule? How do you think the court ruled in this case?

  • CreatedOctober 21, 2015
  • Files Included
Post your question