In Lor-Mar/Toto V

In Lor-Mar/Toto v.Constitution Bank,where the bank cashed bogus checks written on Lor-Mar's company account and the checks had signatures that looked like the stamped signatures Lor-Mar used,the courts held:

A) the bank was liable under the UCC for negligence for not comparing the signatures
B) the bank was liable under the UCC for negligence for allowing a stamped signature to be used without a personal countersignature
C) the bank was not liable because,under the UCC,if the signature looks like a valid stamped signature,the bank has not violated its duty of care
D) the bank was not liable because Lor-Mar carelessly allowed others to get copies of its check blanks
E) none of the other choices