Spacemakers of America, Inc., hired Jenny Tripplet as itsbookkeeper. Pacemakers did not inquire about any prior criminalrecord or conduct a criminal background check of Triplett. If ithad taken those steps, it would have discovered that Triplett wason probation for 13 counts of forgery and had been convicted oftheft by deception. All convictions were the result of Triplettforging checks of previous employers.

Spacemakers delegated to Triplett sole responsibility formaintaining the company’s checkbook, reconciling the checkbook withmonthly bank statements, and preparing financial reports. Triplettalso handled the company’s accounts payable and regularly presentedchecks do Dennis Rose, the president of Spacemakers, so he couldsign them.

Just weeks after starting her job at Spacemakers, Triplettforged Rose’s signature on a check for $3,000 made payable to herhusband’s company, Triple M Entertainment Group, which was not avendor for Spacemakers. By the end of the first full month ofemployment, Triplett forged 50 more checks totaling approximately$475,000. All checks were drawn against Spacemaker’s bank accountat SunTrust Bank. No one except Triplet reviewed the company’s bankstatements. Subsequently, a SunTrust employee visuasilly inspecteda $30,670 check She became suspicious of the signature and calledRose. The SunTrust employee faxed a copy of the check to Rose,which was made payable to Triple M. Rose knew that Triple M was notone of the company’s vendors, and a Spacamekrs employee remindedRose that Triplett’s husband owned Triple M. Rose immediatelycalled the police and Triplett was arrested.

Spacemakers sent a letter to SunTrust Bank, demanding that thebank credit $523,106 to its account for the forged checks. The bankrefused, contending that Spacemaker’s failure to provide the bankwith timely notice of the forgeries barred Spacemaker’s claim.Spacemakers sued SunTrust for negligence and unauthorized paymentof forged items. The trial court granted SunTrust’s motion forsummary judgment. Pacemakers appealed.

Using IRAC, how should this case have been decided and why?Please, do not copy from google. I need original answer.