In the case of, STATE OF QATAR v. FIRST AMERICAN BANK OF VIRGINIA, It was worth considering that a completely new modification made in context of the negotiable instrument provision of the Uniform Commercial Code did support the outcome here. I agree to court case, because the revisions are considered as inappropriate to the case. Further, as per § 3A-206, it can be stated that a completely new section dealing with “For deposit only” as well as like restrictions continues with the content of past laws. Also, the commentary did provide an appropriate example wherein a check simply bears the word, “for Deposit only” above the indorsement