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?
Answer to relevant QuestionsThe plaintiff, U.S. Bank, filed a complaint to fore- close the defendant's mortgage because the defendant had failed to pay the monthly installments on the mortgage. However, the defendant purported to tender payment for the ...Evaluate the following statement: "Order paper and bearer paper must be delivered to be negotiated." What are the requirements of holder-in-due-course status? Under what circumstances would Chapter 11 be used rather than Chapter 7? What are the different types of authority an agent might have, and why is it important to identify the type of an agent's authority?
Post your question