I need two discusson responses to the below: 
Your company cashes checks (like a payday lender).  Last week, one of your employees, Chaz, cashed a $10,000 check that had a stop payment on it.  He reports that he asked about the purpose of the check, and the customer, Fran, told him that she was a broker and that a gentleman by the name of John Redbank had sent it to her as an investment.  Following protocols, Chaz asked for additional proof, at which point Fran produced a Federal Express envelope used by Redbank to forward the check to her.  Usually your company would not cash a check of this size and nature, but there was no written policy.  Chaz went ahead and cashed the check based on his experience that the check would be good.  Chaz did not know Fran, whether she was telling the truth, or that a stop payment order had been placed.  The check was returned by the bank, and the company has been unable to recover the money from Fran.The company hired a private investigator who learned that John Redbank had initially made a $50,000 investment based on the advice of a financial adviser that it would have excellent returns.  When Redbank was not making any returns, he mentioned it to Fran, another financial adviser with the same firm.  She talked Redbank into sending the $10,000 check to bolster the original investment.  After Redbank sent the check, the original financial adviser told Redbank that Fran was a cheat and a thief, and Redbank placed the hold on the check.
Answer using the below. 
  (a) identify the recommended course of action (i.e., whether to sue the customer and what its policy will be for future checks),   (b) outline the issues,   (c) explain your rationale (i.e., apply any applicable rules to the facts given), and   (d) describe any conflicting views and why they have been rejected.
Two seperate 100 word responses of reccomendations.