1. What is the Relationship between the parties in the case?

The relationship is between Robert L. Martin, who is an attorney and PNC Bank where he deposited a check.

2. What are the Rules governing the relationship?

3. What Rights do the rules create for the parties?

4. What Risks do the rules create for the parties?

5. What are the Repercussions from the courts ruling?

6. Finally, answer the Case Questions listed at the end of the case.

7. How did Martin come to have an overdraft of $124,313.01 in his account?

8. Under what UCC provision did the court hold Martin liable for this amount?

9. The contract liability the court discusses was not incurred by Martin on account of his

signature on the check (though he did indorse it); what was the contract liability?

10. If the bank had not taken the check in good faith (honesty in fact and observing reasonable commercial standards), what would the consequence have been, and why?

11. Is a reader really constrained here to say that Mr. Martin got totally scammed, or was his

behavior reasonable under the circumstances?

statements do not impute a lack of good faith to PNC, even if Martin could support the statements with competent evidence. The Uniform Commercial Code and the account agreement place the risk of loss on Martin, even if PNC made a mistake. Martin suggests that an insurance carrier might have already reimbursed PNC for the loss. Martin, however, presents no evidence of reimbursement, which PNC, presumably, would have disclosed in discovery. PNC, therefore, may recover from Martin the overdraft value of $124,313.01, which is the loss PNC suffered as a result of Martin's breach of the transfer warranties and breach of contract. [UCC] \& 3-416(b)... III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that PNC's motion for summary judgment is granted... to the extent that. .. PNC is permitted to recover $124,313.01 from Martin