MC Qu. 31... Which of the following was the result on appeal in New Wave Technologies, Inc. v. Legacy Bank of Texas, the case in the text involving whether endorsements of both payees were required in order for the bank involved to properly release funds on a check made out to "Maxim Solutions Group/New Wave Techn" and providing on the back that "Each Payee Must Endorse Exactly As Drawn"?

1- That while the check would normally be interpreted to require only one payee, the statement on the back that "Each Payee Must Endorse Exactly As Drawn" resulted in the signature of both payees being required before the bank could properly release funds.

2- That the slash was ambiguous and would, therefore, be interpreted to mean "or" resulting in the endorsement of only one payee being required before the bank could properly release funds on the check.

3- That the slash was ambiguous and would, therefore, be interpreted to mean "and" resulting in the endorsements of both payees being required before the bank could properly release funds on the check.

4- That under the UCC the slash meant "and" resulting in the endorsements of both payees being required before the bank could properly release funds on the check.

5- That the slash was ambiguous resulting in the check being non-negotiable regardless of how many signatures were on it.