In Danco, Inc. v. Commerce Bank/Shore, 675 A.2d 663 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1996), the court held that:
A) the indorsements of Danco were not required on the checks in question
B) the promises of Danco were not required on the checks in question
C) the indorsements of Commerce Bank were not required on the checks in question
D) the promises of Commerce Bank were not required on the checks in question

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that the indorsements of Danco were not required on the checks in question, focusing on the specific circumstances of the case and the nature of the checks involved.