978-1285770178 Solution Manual BL ComLaw 1e SM-Ch28

in whole or in part.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES

CASE 28.1—LEGAL REASONING QUESTIONS (PAGE 544)

1A. Why did it matter to the parties in this lawsuit whether the cranes were fixtures or

2A. Did the fact that the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court mean

that the cranes were fixtures? Explain. No. The court reversed the summary judgment

granted by the court in the state’s favor because the trial court had not examined the issue of

intent. According to the court, of the three factors determining whether property was a fixture,

3A. What is the key factor in determining whether property is a fixture, and how did

that factor determine the outcome in this case? The key factor in determining whether an

item of personal property is a fixture is the intent of its owner—as the court in the APL case

stated, “the intent with which the chattel was annexed to the land.” The court explained that

“intent can be determined from the nature of the chattel attached and its relation or necessity to

CHAPTER 28: PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS 3

in whole or in part.

considered to be against public policy. An exculpatory clause that limits a bailee’s liability for his

or her wrongful acts—which might be what Meridian would have used in this case—is carefully

reviewed when challenged in court.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE

2A. Type of gift

Denai’s gift of the land was a gift inter vivos—a gift made during one’s lifetime and not in

contemplation of imminent death.

and benefit alone. The duty of care required of Denai (the bailee) is to exercise reasonable care

to preserve the sailboat (the bailed property) but the degree of that care is slight, because the

bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor.

4A. Standard of care

dollar liability to an amount stated on the shipment contract.

4 UNIT SEVEN: PROPERTY AND ITS PROTECTION

in whole or in part.

ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE

AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER

Common carriers should not be able to limit their liability. Those who use common

carriers for shipping should not have to worry about what happens if a parcel is lost or

damaged. After all, customers of common carriers do not control in what manner their parcels

are handled during shipping. Liability should be shouldered uniquely by the carrier.

If common carriers had unlimited liability, they would have to purchase much more

1A. Quintana Corporation sends important documents to Regal Nursery, Inc., via

Speedy Messenger Service. While the documents are in Speedy’s care, a third party

causes an accident to Speedy’s delivery vehicle that results in the loss of the documents.

Does Speedy have a right to recover from the third party for the loss of the documents?

carrier is liable for damage caused by the willful acts of third persons or by an accident. Other

losses must be borne by the shipper (or the recipient, depending on the terms of their contract).

This shipment was lost due to an act of God.

ANSWERS TO BUSINESS SCENARIOS AND BUSINESS CASE PROBLEMS

mortis is revocable at any time prior to Jaspal’s death and is automatically revoked if Jaspal

survives the illness that initiated the gift. Thus, for the gift to be absolute, Jaspal would have

had to die from the illness contemplated—the heart attack. Because Jaspal survived the heart

CHAPTER 28: PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS 5

in whole or in part.

attack, the gift to Friedrich was revoked, and the car passed back to Jaspal. It now belongs to

Jaspal’s estate, and Uncle Sam is correct in demanding its return.

28-2A. Bailments

(Chapter 28—Page 553)

For Curtis to recover against the hotel, he must first prove that a bailment relationship was

created between himself and the hotel as to the car or the fur coat, or both. For a bailment to

exist, there must be a delivery of the personal property that gives the bailee exclusive

duty to exercise reasonable care over the property to and to return the bailed car at the end of

the bailment. Failure to return the car creates a presumption of negligence (lack of reasonable

care), and unless the hotel can rebut this presumption, the hotel is liable to Curtis for the loss of

the car. As to the fur coat, the hotel neither knew nor expected that the trunk contained an ex-

pensive fur coat. Thus, although the hotel knowingly took exclusive possession of the car, the

This bailment was created primarily for the benefit of the bailor. Under these circumstances the

bailee can be expected to use only slight care in the protection of the bailed property from loss

or damage. Because the bailee’s custom was to leave the garage door open on short trips, her

failure to close and lock the garage door might not necessarily be a breach of the care required

here. Thus, the bailee may have no liability to the bailor. One could reasonably argue,

could cause injury to the bailee. If the bailed goods are defective, the bailor’s duty is to give the

bailee appropriate notice. Failure to do this may cause the bailor to be liable for negligence.

(a) In a gratuitous bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee, the bailor’s duty of notice

to the bailee applies only to known defects. Therefore, unless Max actually knew of the loose

blade, he has not breached his duty and will not be liable to Orlando for Orlando’s injuries.

in whole or in part.

8 UNIT SEVEN: PROPERTY AND ITS PROTECTION

in whole or in part.

contemplated, at the time of an engagement. If and when that which the parties contemplated—

the marriage—does not occur, the engagement ring goes back to the one who gave it.” In other

words, an engagement ring “is impliedly a conditional gift. If marriage, for whatever reason, does

not ensue, ownership of the ring never vests in the donee.”

(c) The answer to this question should follow the application of the same principles

that influenced the answer to the previous question. If, as the trial court held, “the passing of the

ring was a completed gift on the transfer of the ring” then the creditor in this problem should not

be allowed to recover it in satisfaction of a debt of the donor. If, however, as the appellate court

ruled, a gift given in contemplation of marriage is given on the condition that the marriage

28–9A. LEGAL REASONING GROUP ACTIVITY—Bailments

(a) Rosa is entitled to the return of the cash. There was a bailment between her and

Sébastien. A bailment is formed by the delivery of personal property without the transfer of title

by one person, the bailor, to another, the bailee, usually under an agreement for a particular

purpose. On the completion of the purpose, the bailee is obligated to deliver the property to the

Rosa transferred title to the cash when she gave it to Sébastien. There was thus no bailment,

and Sébastien had title to the cash when the customs inspector found it.