Court rule for joint chequing accounts

Please analyze the 2 question below:

1. Steven had a joint checking account with his mother at City National Bank. Between January and May 1990, a number of checks were allegedly forged on the account. Steven asked City National to recredit the account for the amount of the checks, but the bank refused. In March 1992, Steven filed a lawsuit against the bank. City National filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the suit was barred because Steven did not file it within a year of City National's making available to Steven the bank statements that reflected the forged checks. Steven argued that the only requirement was that he notify the bank of any unauthorized signatures within a year. How should the court rule?

2. Frank Hartman, Jr., and Robert Wiesner visited the site of a derailment of a Burlington Northern (BN) train to bid on lumber carried on the train. Hartman was to provide the salvage expertise, and Wiesner was to provide the know-how to sell the lumber. They submitted a bid of $113,663, which BN accepted. To make the payment, Hartman and Wiesner contacted Dave Anderson, who contacted Doug Feller, the managing partner of BBD Partnership. Hartman, Wiesner, Anderson, and Feller agreed to share profits from the sale of the lumber. BBD then borrowed the money to pay BN. BBD, through Feller, had promised to get involved only if it could own the lumber, however. Thus on the bill of sale, BN entered the names "Hartman Construction" and "Feller Associates," a sole proprietorship owned by Feller. BBD later sold its interest in the deal to another party. Two years later, Hartman, Wiesner, BBD, and Feller became involved in a lawsuit over the funds that BBD had borrowed. Was the deal between the parties a joint venture or simply a loan from BBD to Hartman and the others? Discuss fully.