Use the following facts to answer the next two questions. Last month, Elaine wrote a $10,000 check for deposit into the college fund of her granddaughter (Meredith) that Elaine's son (Tim) had recently opened for Meredith. She mailed the check to Tim. The check was payable "to the order of Tim Smith, in trust for Meredith Smith, a minor." The accompanying letter directed Tim to add the proceeds to Meredith's college fund. Tim took the check and deposited it into his personal account at Metro Bank after adding the following two-line indorsement: "for deposit only / Tim Smith". ZeeBank, the drawee, paid the check. Soon thereafter, Tim withdrew the funds to pay off some uninsured medical expenses and overdue credit card bills. Greatly annoyed at this, Elaine and Meredith initiated a lawsuit against both Metro Bank and ZeeBank, seeking to recover $10,000, on the theory that Tim had violated his fiduciary duties, a fact that each bank knew or should have known. Tim's two-line indorsement is: (A) a blank and restrictive indorsement. (B) a special and restrictive indorsement. (C) an anomalous and restrictive indorsement. (D) a restrictive indorsement only. The lawsuit will succeed against: (A) both banks. (B) Metro Bank but not ZeeBank. (C) ZeeBank but not Metro Bank. (D) neither bank. Three days ago, Tim wrote a check intending to pay his utility bill of $213.79. He inserted the correct amount in the numerical box on the check, but he wrote the amount as "two hundred seventy-nine and 13/100" dollars. No party catches the mistake until the check is presented to the payor bank for payment. The payor bank should honor the check for: (A) $279.13 because that number is the higher of the two numbers. (B) $279.13 because words control over numbers. (C) $246.46, the average of the two numbers. (D) $213.79, because that number is the lower of the two numbers and the correct amount of the utility bill. Use the following facts to answer the next two questions. Last month, Elaine wrote a $10,000 check for deposit into the college fund of her granddaughter (Meredith) that Elaine's son (Tim) had recently opened for Meredith. She mailed the check to Tim. The check was payable "to the order of Tim Smith, in trust for Meredith Smith, a minor." The accompanying letter directed Tim to add the proceeds to Meredith's college fund. Tim took the check and deposited it into his personal account at Metro Bank after adding the following two-line indorsement: "for deposit only / Tim Smith". ZeeBank, the drawee, paid the check. Soon thereafter, Tim withdrew the funds to pay off some uninsured medical expenses and overdue credit card bills. Greatly annoyed at this, Elaine and Meredith initiated a lawsuit against both Metro Bank and ZeeBank, seeking to recover $10,000, on the theory that Tim had violated his fiduciary duties, a fact that each bank knew or should have known. Tim's two-line indorsement is: (A) a blank and restrictive indorsement. (B) a special and restrictive indorsement. (C) an anomalous and restrictive indorsement. (D) a restrictive indorsement only. The lawsuit will succeed against: (A) both banks. (B) Metro Bank but not ZeeBank. (C) ZeeBank but not Metro Bank. (D) neither bank. Three days ago, Tim wrote a check intending to pay his utility bill of $213.79. He inserted the correct amount in the numerical box on the check, but he wrote the amount as "two hundred seventy-nine and 13/100" dollars. No party catches the mistake until the check is presented to the payor bank for payment. The payor bank should honor the check for: (A) $279.13 because that number is the higher of the two numbers. (B) $279.13 because words control over numbers. (C) $246.46, the average of the two numbers. (D) $213.79, because that number is the lower of the two numbers and the correct amount of the utility bill