Question

Margaret Weiland a business associate of Albert Miller was owed money by Mr. Miller. He wanted to pay in installments and for collateral in 2009 drew two checks on the United Bank of Philadelphia one for $10,000 and the other for $1800 and delivered them to Ms. Weiland. The checks were left undated. The plaintiff testified that he paid all but $2,400 of this debt during the next 3 years. Margaret Weiland then told Albert Miller that she had destroyed both checks. Mr. Miller never notified the defendant Bank to stop payment on the checks nor that he had issued the checks without filling in the dates. The date line of United Bank of Philadelphia check forms contained the first 3 numbers of the year but left the last numeral, month and day entries, blank, “Philadephia, PA . _ _ 200 _.” The checks were cashed in Tampa, Florida, March 30, 2018, and the dateline of each check was completed. They were presented to and paid by United Bank of Philadelphia, April 2, 2018, under the endorsement of Margaret Weiland. The plaintiff protested such payment when he was informed of it about a month later. Defendant Bank denied liability and plaintiff brought suit. The two checks were dated March 29, 2018. The dates filled in with pen and ink after the date of issue however, this was not known by defendant. How do you think the court ruled in and why? Was there liability on the banks part? Why or why not?

Answer 1

as the check is honored by other person by endorsing of check it means that check is honored by right party. Now party can not deny that the check is not honored or she never got any kind of check.

There is no liability as bank if bank properly use his due diligence . As in our case the sign is proper and holder of check is holder in due course so there is no liability on bank