Bailments Flashcards
Bailment Definition
When owner (bailor) temporarily transfers exclusive possession and control of chattel to another (bailee)
Two requirements of a bailment
• 1) Exclusive possession = actual physical control
- Includes symbolic and constructive delivery (e.g. giving keys to a car)
• 2) Acceptance by Bailee = insinuates implementation of a contract or agreement
- Constructive acceptance found where item is acquired and retained under circumstances in which recipient should keep it safely and return it to owner (e.g. owner left or lost coat in hotel dining room)
Four types of bailments
• 1. Express:
- Critical terms of bailment have been discussed
- Can have express bailment that supersedes common law
• 2. Implied by failure to discuss terms:
- e.g. friend asks to borrow car and you toss her keys
• 3. Implied by operation of law:
- e.g. law of finders: legal finder of lost property acquires simple possessory interest
- Was it:
- Lost: owner involuntarility parts with possession
- Mislaid: involuntary parts with object
- Abandon: first person to take possession is actual legal finder, acquires true ownership interest
- Treasure trove
• 4. Implied by constructive possession:
- e.g. waiter takes your hat and puts in on a coat rack in plain sight – implied invitation and still was within their constructive possession
Duty to redeliver property undamaged
Modern View
Bailee must demonstrate exercise of due care
- Plaintiff only needs to prove there was a bailment, not that bailee was negligent
- Bailee needs to prove they were NOT negligent
- Reasonable care under the circumstances
Duty to redeliver property undamaged
Traditional CL View
- Bailee will be liable if they cant prove they were not negligent
- Burden is on bailee
- “We did everything a regular dry clearer would do”
- Bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee – e.g. borrowing car → slight negligence
- Bailment for the sole benefit of the bailor – e.g. finder of lost property → gross negligence
- Bailment for the mutual benefit of bailor and bailee – e.g. customer test-drives dealer car → ordinary negligence
Container / ordinary contents rule:
• Bailment does NOT exist for unknown extraordinary contents
- Duty only exists for known contents and unknown ordinary contents
- Purpose: Risk allocation; protects expectations of bailee
- Reasonably expected contents somewhat reliant on circumstances of bailment
- E.g. valet at country club parks your car and it disappears, cannot sue for $10,000 hidden in glove box. Could sue for the $1,000 worth of golf clubs in the back bc it is reasonably expected
Law of Finders
Implied bailment on finder of lost/mislaid property
Duties of finder
- Reasonable care for property
- Reasonable attempt to find true owner (Depends on nature of object - reasonable is different for a penny v. million bucks)
Considering the nature of the property and the circumstances, failure to do so makes them a wrongful converter
Law of Finders:
Statute of Limitations
Determines period during which true owner may reclaim the property before simple possessory interest becomes true ownership; usually 2 years
Law of Finders:
Lost definition
Def: true owner involuntarily/unintentionally/unconsciously parts with possession of property
Law of Finders:
Legal finder has what possessory interest
- Actual finder has a simply possessory interest (SPI) = entitled to possess the lost property against everyone but the true owner – See Armory v. Delamirie
- Special Interest turns into true ownership after statute of limitations has passed
Law of Finders:
Lost property - Exceptions
- Buried property → Owner of locus in quo (OLIQ) has a SPI
- Highly private locus → Owner of locus in quo (OLIQ) has a SPI – see Bridges v. Hawkesworth
- E.g. University of Denver is private property but not highly private because the public is invited in on a regular basis, so the finder has the SPI
- E.g. finding a diamond ring in the back room of a restaurant, need to ask how often the restaurant allows the public in to see the chef
- Trespasser finder → Owner of locus in quo (OLIQ) has a SPI
- Employee finder → Employer has a SPI – See Staffordshire v. Sharman
- Only while the employee is performing specific duties of employment
- Not if the employee comes in off-duty and for extraneous purposes
Law of Finders:
Mislaid Property Definition
Intentionally placed somewhere and forgotten; owner voluntarily parts with possession, intentionally put in a certain place to be retrieved later but is subsequently forgotten
Mislaid Property:
Legal finder’s property rights and rationale behind that
Owner of the locus in quo has a SPI
- Actual finder acquires no rights in the property
- Rationale: to protect property rights of the true owner
- We expect owner will remember location of place where left
Owner of Locus in Quo: Definition
Locus in quo refers to “the place where the cause of action arose”
The land to which the defendant trespassed.
It may also be used, more generally, as any place mentioned, that is, the venue or place mentioned.
