Multiple Choice
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?
A) Based on public policy,the plaintiff was denied recovery although no negligence was found on the part of either party.
B) Because only the bank was found negligent,the plaintiff was denied recovery.
C) Because only the bank was found negligent,the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the checks.
D) Because both the plaintiff and the bank were found negligent,the plaintiff was denied recovery.
E) Because both the plaintiff and the bank were found negligent,the plaintiff recovered only 50% of his losses.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q20: If an accommodation party pays a note
Q46: A secondarily liable party becomes liable even
Q50: Who among the following was the holder
Q53: Which of the following is true regarding
Q57: Liam wrote a check drawn on his
Q58: Under what circumstances might Charla be held
Q59: Who is the drawee of the check
Q60: [Paying Debts] Felicia writes a $500 promissory
Q61: If a transfer is through endorsement, transfer
Q72: Set forth the eight real defenses and