S, the accountant for a railway company, forged the signature of the company's signing officer on a company cheque. The cheque was payable on the company's account and made out to another company controlled by S. The agreement between the company and its bank had no provision requiring the company to verify the monthly statements sent it by the bank for any discrepancies. Eventually, the company discovered the forgery and demanded that the bank return the money to its account, but the bank refused. In a lawsuit by the company against the bank for recovery of its money,
a. the bank will succeed because it simply honoured the cheques, which were negotiable instruments.
b. the bank will successfully defend the lawsuit because the cheques were forged by the company's accountant.
c. the company will succeed because there was no agreement between the bank and the company requiring the company to verify its statements.
d. the company will succeed but on a quantum meruit basis only.
e. the bank will succeed because the company owed the bank a duty to maintain internal audit controls, which would have found the problem.
Quick Reply
