a. Let me get this straight: a Merrill Lynch employee twice told Harrington that the MacNab's account contained sufficient funds to cover the check-once orally, once in writing. The employee promised that she would put a hold on those funds. Harrington relied on her misrepresentation, yet Merrill Lynch is not liable and Harrington is left holding the bag?
b. How can that be right?
c. Why does that matter? Merrill Lynch still made a promise on which Harrington relied.
d. Isn't it Merrill's responsibility to train its employees better?
e. What should Harrington have done differently?
f. What is the moral of the story?
The MacNabs purchased property from Richard Harrington's client. The MacNabs came to the closing with an uncertified personal check drawn on their Merrill Lynch cash management account for $150,128.70. When Harrington called Merrill Lynch, an employee told him that there were sufficient funds in the MacNabs' account to cover the check and that she would put a hold on the account in the amount of the check. She confirmed this promise by fax. Despite this promise, the check bounced. Harrington paid his clients the amount owing and then obtained a judgment against the MacNabs. When they did not pay him, he sued Merrill Lynch.