Multiple Choice
The case, State of Qatar v. First American Bank of Virginia , held that:
A) the phrase "for deposit only" is not an effective restrictive indorsement.
B) depositary banks are not required to handle checks consistent with the restrictive indorsement.
C) the phrase "for deposit only" effectively limits the depositary bank to handle the instrument in a manner consistent with the transaction.
D) a stolen check which is indorsed in blank cannot be freely negotiated by the bearer.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q18: A qualified indorsement destroys negotiability.
Q29: Opal had a check for $294 made
Q31: "Order paper" is negotiated by delivery only.
Q33: A holder need not actually have the
Q34: The customary manner of disclaiming the indorser's
Q35: A restrictive indorsement:<br>A) disclaims contract liability.<br>B) removes
Q36: Personal defenses include all but:<br>A) lack of
Q39: If the issuer and the person paying
Q49: The transfer of a nonnegotiable promise or
Q68: Delivery alone is insufficient to negotiate an