Nick steals two checks from Pauline—a blank check and a check payable to the order of Retail Outlets Company, drawn on Pauline’s account with State Bank. Nick forges Pauline’s signature on the blank check and makes it payable to himself. Nick forges Retail Outlets’s indorsement on the back of the check payable to Retail Outlets, and adds “Pay to the order of Nick.” At United Credit Union, Nick indorses the back of both checks with his own name and gives them to United for cash. United does not know about the theft or the forged signatures and presents the checks to State Bank, which pays them. Pauline, who was not negligent, discovers the forgeries and asks State Bank to recredit her account. Who suffers the loss on each check?

Nick steals two checks from Pauline—a blank check and a check payable to the order of Retail Outlets Company, drawn on Pauline’s account with State Bank. Nick forges Pauline’s signature on the blank check and makes it payable to himself. Nick forges Retail Outlets’s indorsement on the back of the check payable to Retail Outlets, and adds “Pay to the order of Nick.” At United Credit Union, Nick indorses the back of both checks with his own name and gives them to United for cash. United does not know about the theft or the forged signatures and presents the checks to State Bank, which pays them. Pauline, who was not negligent, discovers the forgeries and asks State Bank to recredit her account. Who suffers the loss on each check?

Similar questions

On April 1, Orizon LLC sent Jim Stevens a letter via overnight delivery, offering to employ him to audit Orizon, LLC’s financial statements for the current year for $10,000. In the letter, Orizon, LLC stated that Jim had ten days to accept. On April 5, Jim sent Orizon, LLC a fax that stated, "The price for the audit seems too low. Would you consider paying $12,000?" Orizon, LLC received the fax. The next day, Serena Williams heard about the offer to Jim and said to Orizon, LLC, “I will accept that offer!” On learning of Serena’s statement, Jim immediately e-mailed Orizon, LLC agreeing to do the work for $10,000. Orizon, LLC received this e-mail on April 7. 1. Explain in detail why Orizon, LLC and Jim do, or do not, have a contract. 2. If you did not discuss it already, would applying the mailbox rule change your answer in #1? 3. Can Serena accept this offer?
Smith was approached by a man who introduced himself as Brown of Brown & Co. Brown was not known to Smith, but Smith asked Dun & Bradstreet for a credit report and obtained a very favorable report on Brown. He thereupon sold Brown some expensive gems and billed Brown & Co. “Brown” turned out to be a clever jewel thief, who later sold the gems to Brown & Co. for valuable consideration. Brown & Co. was unaware of “Brown’s” transaction with Smith. Can Smith successfully sue Brown & Co. for either the return of the gems or the price as billed to Brown & Co.?
Maia wrote a check that said "Pay to the order of Kevin Mathews $10.97." The next line of the check stated, "One thousand ninety-seven dollars." In applying the rules of interpretation, how much should the drawee pay? a. Nothing; when the instrument is ambiguous it is declared non-negotiable. b. $10.97; numbers control over words. c. One thousand, ninety-seven dollars, or $1,097.00. Words control over numbers. d. Parol evidence would be needed to determine the purpose of the check.
Assume that before Rafael takes possession of the plane, Barron has begun to use it in his new business offering air tours of Glacier National Park in Montana. Does his use of the plane for business purposes impact the bank's security interest in the plane?
Carol White ordered a $225 pair of contact lenses through an optometrist. White, an emancipated minor, paid $100 by check and agreed to pay the remaining $125 at a later time. The doctor ordered the lenses, incurring a debt of $110. After the lenses were ordered, White called to cancel her order and stopped payment on the $100 check. The lenses could be used by no one but White. The doctor sued White for the value of the lenses. Will the doctor be able to recover the money from White? Explain.
Which of the following matters cannot be taken into account in determining a taxpayer’s purpose in entering into or carrying out a scheme under Part IVA: (a) Manner in which the scheme is entered into and carried out. (b) Form and substance of the scheme. (c) Time the scheme is entered and length of period it is carried out. (d) Tax result achieved but for Part IVA. (e) Change in financial position of the taxpayer and any connected person. (f) Other consequences for the taxpayer and any connected person. (g) Nature of any connection between the taxpayer and any connected person. (h) A taxpayer’s actual subjective purpose. in entering into the scheme or carrying it out. Which of the following cannot be a general deduction for an employee: (a) Work union membership fees. (b) Work related travel (non-car) expenses. (c) Periodical subscriptions to trade or professional associations. (d) Periodical subscriptions to work related or professional books and manuals. (e) Technical or trade…
Andre writes a check for $2,600, payable to Anthony, and drawn on First National Bank. Anthony indorses the check on the back and gives the check to Simon to repay a loan. Simon indorses the check on the back and takes the check to First National Bank to cash the check and receive the money. If First National Bank dishonors the check, Simon can collect the $2,600 from Anthony: under no circumstances; Anthony is merely an indorser, not a maker. if First National Bank does not pay the check within six months. if Andre refuses to pay and Simon gives timely notice of dishonor to Anthony. if Simon gives timely notice of dishonor to Anthony.
Carl works as a waiter for a restaurant in Panama City Beach, Florida. The restaurant closes at 11:00 p.m. Two patrons came in at 10:30 p.m. and stayed until 12:00 a.m. Carl was their waiter and gave excellent customer service. The patrons left a $5.00 tip for Carl on a $200.00 bill and left a note saying, “Go back to school if you want more money.” Carl was so upset that he went home and posted on Facebook about how cheap, stinky, and ugly the patrons were. Carl mentioned the restaurant's name in his post. Carl had only 20 Facebook friends, and his privacy settings only allowed friends to see his posts. One of Carl's coworkers saw the post and told the restaurant manager. The restaurant manager terminated Carl based on violating two company policies: 1. The policy prohibiting speaking disparagingly about customers and 2. The policy prohibits casting the restaurant negatively on social media networks. Carl is not in a union. How do you analyze whether or not the restaurant's…
Jeremy Cobb submitted an apartment rental application to Common Properties Management Coop- erative (Common) over the phone. Cobb authorized Common to debit his checking account for the $37.95 application fee. However, the debit was returned by Cobb’s bank as unpaid, and Cobb was assessed a Non-sufficient Funds (NsF) fee of $35.00 by Cobb’s bank, along with a $25.00 “returned fee” by PayLease, LLC (PayLease), Common’s financial institution. Cobb sued under the eFta, alleg- ing that the $25.00 “returned fee” had not been authorized. was the $25.00 returned fee to Pay- Lease covered by the EFTA?
Does a post dated check affect negotiability? In other words, does it matter that Niki deposited the check into her account BEFORE the date on the check? Will Niki be entitled to the $50? Explain your answer.
Mr. Goode and Reticent Bank Limited had entered into a margin lending agreement called a Margin Lending Loan and Security Agreement (LSA). In January 2009, RBL sold to Financial Innovators Bank International Limited (FIBIL) its margin loan book comprising about 18,500 margin loans (including Mr. Goode’s) on which the total amount advanced was approximately US$1.5 billion. The transaction documents under which the sale was made (the transaction documents) were complex and provided for an intermediate sale of the assets to BNY Trust Company Limited (BNY) and an on-sale to FIBIL. As part of the sale process, RBL notified each of its affected borrowers by letter of this transfer of their loans to FIBIL. RBL led evidence at first instance to prove this letter was sent to Mr. Goode on 19 January 2009. Mr. Goode denied receiving it. By the beginning of 2009, Mr. Goode’s investment in listed securities financed through his margin loan consisted of a single stock – units in the Macaripe…