Question

Snug Harbor Realty Co., had a checking account in 1st National Bank. When construction work was obtained by Snug Harbor, its superintendent, Magee, would examine the bills submitted for labor and materials. He would instruct the bookkeeper which bills were approved, and the bookkeeper then prepared the checks in accordance with his instructions. After the checks were signed by the proper official of Snug Harbor, Magee picked them up for delivery. Instead of delivering certain checks, he forged the signatures of the respective payees as endorsers and cashed the checks. The drawee bank then debited the Snug Harbor account with the amount of the checks. Snug Harbor claimed this was improper and sued the bank for the amount of the checks. The bank claimed it was protected by the impostor rule.

Required:
Will the bank be successful?

Answer 1

Answer is explained in the explanation section below.

Step-by-step explanation:

Solution:

The higher court's ruling was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The higher court argued that the trial court erred by failing to understand that the checks were for actual payees for the plaintiff, not names given by the employee, and that the trial court erred in its decision.

The bank will be covered under UCC 3-405 if an employee forged a payee and forged the endorsement on a company check and embezzled the check. The checks were meant for the company's actual payees, so this was not the case.