Insert surname 1
Professor’s name
Student’s name
Course name
Date
GERBER & GERBER, P.C vs REGIONS BANK CASE.
This is a case that involved an employer who claimed that his checks were stolen by his
employee and the employee went ahead and deposited the money in his own account at the
Regions Bank. The employer decided to sue the bank of accepting to deposit the check that was
stolen from him by his employee (Jain & Neena, 2017).
In this case, different principles can be used to describe the liability that is between this
two parties. One can say that the bank acted negligently to the act since it failed in taking
reasonable care to the checks that they receive and deposited. One also can conclude that the
theft was made possible the endorsement of checks was kept open by G&G in which all
employees were able to access the open file of checks. Hence G&G should be considered
negligent of not keeping the checks in a safe place (Khachatryan & Vardan, 2016).
In this Case, also there is the principle of the commercial standards that are reasonable
for the ordinary care. This is seen where the bank failing to observe the commercial standards
that are reasonable in which they were to prevail the area of residence of the employee who
deposited the check and has an information on the business that the person was engaged with.
This is because the kind of amount that he deposited was huge for his account. This is also seen
Professor’s name
Student’s name
Course name
Date
GERBER & GERBER, P.C vs REGIONS BANK CASE.
This is a case that involved an employer who claimed that his checks were stolen by his
employee and the employee went ahead and deposited the money in his own account at the
Regions Bank. The employer decided to sue the bank of accepting to deposit the check that was
stolen from him by his employee (Jain & Neena, 2017).
In this case, different principles can be used to describe the liability that is between this
two parties. One can say that the bank acted negligently to the act since it failed in taking
reasonable care to the checks that they receive and deposited. One also can conclude that the
theft was made possible the endorsement of checks was kept open by G&G in which all
employees were able to access the open file of checks. Hence G&G should be considered
negligent of not keeping the checks in a safe place (Khachatryan & Vardan, 2016).
In this Case, also there is the principle of the commercial standards that are reasonable
for the ordinary care. This is seen where the bank failing to observe the commercial standards
that are reasonable in which they were to prevail the area of residence of the employee who
deposited the check and has an information on the business that the person was engaged with.
This is because the kind of amount that he deposited was huge for his account. This is also seen
