Which of the following was the result on appeal in the Case Opener in which the plaintiff optometrist sued the defending bank for cashing over 500 checks that his receptionist fraudulently embezzled through forging his signature?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The court found that the plaintiff exercised "ordinary care" in the conduct of his practice and did not substantially contribute to the making of his forged signature on the checks.However,Bank One failed to act in accordance with its own policies.The plaintiff was therefore allowed to recover for the value of the embezzled checks.
B)The court found that the plaintiff exercised "ordinary care" in the conduct of his practice and did not substantially contribute to the making of his forged signature on the checks.However,Bank One failed to act in accordance with its own policies.The plaintiff was therefore allowed to recover for the value of the embezzled checks.
C)The court found that the plaintiff exercised "ordinary care" in the conduct of his practice and did not substantially contribute to the making of his forged signature on the checks.However,Bank One failed to act in accordance with its own policies.The plaintiff was therefore allowed to recover for the value of the embezzled checks.
D)The court found that the plaintiff exercised "ordinary care" in the conduct of his practice and did not substantially contribute to the making of his forged signature on the checks.However,Bank One failed to act in accordance with its own policies.The plaintiff was therefore allowed to recover for the value of the embezzled checks.
E)The court found that the plaintiff exercised "ordinary care" in the conduct of his practice and did not substantially contribute to the making of his forged signature on the checks.However,Bank One failed to act in accordance with its own policies.The plaintiff was therefore allowed to recover for the value of the embezzled checks.

Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in the Case