James Liddell, who was doing business under the corporate name of JHL & Associates, Inc., agreed to invest Jan Mumma’s funds in Fidelity, a nationally traded mutual fund management company. Mumma indorsed a cashier’s check for $13,904.48 to “Fidelity/JHL & Associates.” Liddell indorsed the check with JHL’s endorsement stamp and deposited the check, without Fidelity’s endorsement, into JHL’s bank account at Rainier National Bank. Liddell never invested the funds in Fidelity. Mumma was unable to recover her money from JHL, which had become insolvent, or from Liddell, who was serving a jail sentence for fraud stemming from this incident and others like it. Mumma then attempted to recover from Rainier National Bank, claiming that the bank was negligent by not requiring both Fidelity and JHL & Associates to endorse the check. Was Mumma correct? Explain. [Mumma v. Rainier National Bank, 60 Wash.App. 937, 808 P.2d 767 (1991)]

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Answer Negligence This is termed as the failure to exercise an appropriate and or ethical rule which is expected to be exercised amongst the specified ... View the full answer