In addition, Mansi had received bank statements and failed to examine them.

Jump to Solution
Category:

In addition, Mansi had received bank statements and failed to examine them.

0
0

Mary Mansi claims that eighteen checks on her account contain forgeries but were nevertheless paid by her bank, Sterling National Bank. The checks bore signatures that, according to Mansi’s handwriting expert, were apparently “written by another person who attempted to simulate her
signature” and thus were not considered obvious forgeries. Sterling National Bank acknowledged that it did honor those eighteen checks, but nine of them were returned to the plaintiff more than one year prior to this action.
 
In addition, Mansi had received bank statements and failed to examine them.
 
a. What are the arguments that the bank is liable to Mansi for wrongfully paying the checks?

Mary Mansi claims that eighteen checks on her account contain forgeries but were nevertheless paid by her bank, Sterling National Bank. The checks bore signatures that, according to Mansi’s handwriting expert, were apparently “written by another person who attempted to simulate her
signature” and thus were not considered obvious forgeries. Sterling National Bank acknowledged that it did honor those eighteen checks, but nine of them were returned to the plaintiff more than one year prior to this action.
 
In addition, Mansi had received bank statements and failed to examine them.
 
b. What are the arguments that the bank is not liable to Mansi for paying the checks?

Mary Mansi claims that eighteen checks on her account contain forgeries but were nevertheless paid by her bank, Sterling National Bank. The checks bore signatures that, according to Mansi’s handwriting expert, were apparently “written by another person who attempted to simulate her
signature” and thus were not considered obvious forgeries. Sterling National Bank acknowledged that it did honor those eighteen checks, but nine of them were returned to the plaintiff more than one year prior to this action.
 
In addition, Mansi had received bank statements and failed to examine them.
 
c. Who should prevail? Why?

Explanation & AnswerSolution by a verified expert

Explanation

Bank SN may be held responsible since:

It is the bank's duty to take care of transactions related to Plaintiff M's account. Bank SN failed to do so since it has indorsed checks that Plaintiff M has not asked for.
Bank SN is negligent and did not verify signatures before every transaction on Plaintiff M's account to avoid forgery.

Verified Answer

Plaintiff M can argue that Bank SN is liable since:
 

 Plaintiff M has never asked for the checks that the bank has indorsed.
The bank should have verified the signature before encashing the checks; the bank should have identified that the signature is false.

Purchase this answer to view it. $5
Login/Sign up for free, load your wallet instantly using PayPal or cards and purchase this solution to view it.

Looking for the solution to this or another homework question?

If you need essay writing assistance or homework solutions, log in or sign up for a free account and ask our writers any homework question.