Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

تمرين 3

Facts
Martino is president of the Hazelnut Peanut Company. He was unaware of the fact that his bookkeeper, Ramcola, stole bank checks and printed company checks on his home computer to pay his bills. He removed the forged canceled checks when he sorted through the office mail. The forgeries were not discovered until after Ramcola left the company and Martino found a canceled check with a signature that he did not recognize. He also discovered that Ramcola forged company checks in an amount totaling more than $200,000 over the three-year period of his employment from September 2000 through December 2003. More than a year lapsed before Martino discovered the forgeries or reported them to the Bank of ID. At that time, Martino, as president of the company, brought a legal action against the Bank of ID, asserting that the bank failed to detect the forged checks that were charged to the Hazelnut Peanut Company account. Martino claimed that paying the forged checks constituted unauthorized payments.
At Trial
The Bank of ID, through its attorney, stated that Martino was absolutely precluded from asserting unauthorized payment for any loss because of the forgeries processed by the bank. The bank attorney further asserted that the bank did send out monthly bank statements and that Martino's accounting department was in a good position to detect forgeries.
Questions
1. Who do you personally think has the stronger argument, in this case, the Bank of ID or Martino?
2. What is legally required of a customer who is making a claim against a bank for unauthorized payments from his checking account?
3. Legally, did Martino meet these legal guidelines?
4. How did your personal thoughts about the case compare with what the law says must have been done to rule in favor of Martino?