ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS
CHAPTER 48
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS
48-1A. Gifts
According to the court, an effective gift had not been made. The court first summarized the es-
sential elements of a gift of personal property: “(1) a present intention to make a gift on the part
of the donor, (2) a delivery of the property by the donor to the donee, and (3) an acceptance by
48-2A. Gifts
The trial court held, among other things, that the note was effectively delivered, and Chalmers
appealed. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the trial court’s decision. The state’s high-
est court pointed to the indorsement on the back of the note in favor of Nina Chalmers and the
B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 48
48-3A. Gifts
The trial court ruled in favor of Darlene, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. “When an
executed deed is found in the possession of a grantee, a presumption arises that the deed was
delivered and the burden of overcoming the presumption is on the party contending the contra-
48-4A. Gifts
The trial court held that the gift had not been adequately delivered before Wilson’s death, and
therefore Cronan was liable on the debt. Cronan appealed. The appellate court affirmed the
decision of the trial court, ruling that Wilson’s gift to Cronan—the forgiveness of Cronan’s debt—
48-5A. Duties of the bailee
As a general rule, a bailee has a duty to return the bailed property to the bailor, and failure to do
so constitutes a tort of conversion. There is an exception when the bailee delivers the property
48-6A. Duties of the bailee
The court ruled that the release clause in the rental agreement exempting the bank from liability
was invalid on the basis of public policy, and the bank was liable for negligence. The court stat-
48-7A. Innkeepers
The state trial court held that the hotel was not liable to Augustine for the loss of the coat and
dismissed the claim. The court stated that no bailor-bailee relationship had come into existence
48-8A. Found property
The court granted the motion, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the
lower court’s decision. Shivers did not acquire ownership rights in the tokens, because they be-
48-9A. Gift inter vivos
The court agreed with the son, and the daughter appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court. The
state supreme court affirmed the decision of the lower court. The state supreme court pointed
48–10A. Found property
The court characterized the money as “mislaid” property and thus that the interest of Lock Hos-
pitality, as the owner of the premises, was superior to the interest of Terry and Stocks as the
finders of the money. Terry and Stocks appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court, which af-
firmed the decision of the lower court. The state supreme court recognized that “[t]he rights of a