CHAPTER 49
PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 49.1—QUESTIONS (PAGE 958)
1A. Why did it matter to the parties in this lawsuit whether the cranes were fixtures or not? The
“stake” in this lawsuit were the sales taxes that APL Limited was paying on the rents received for the
cranes, based on the assumption that the cranes were personal property. If the court held that the
cranes were fixtures, and thus realty, APL would avoid having to pay future sales taxes on the cranes
(and might even receive a refund of previously paid sales taxes on the cranes). For the state department
of revenue, the outcome of the case would determine whether it could collect sales taxes from APL.
2A. Did the fact that the appellate court reversed the judgment of the trial court mean that the
cranes were fixtures? No. The court reversed the summary judgment granted by the court in the
CASE 49.2—QUESTION (PAGE 961)
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?
Suppose that Piper had told Kauffman that she was giving the rings to Kauffman but wished to keep
them in her possession for a few more days. Would this have affected the court’s decision in this case?
CASE 49.3—QUESTIONS (PAGE 969)
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION
At Briere’s stable, LaPlace had access to, and control over, Park Me In First at any time. Could Briere thus
deny that a bailment relationship existed? Explain. No. When LaPlace delivered his horse to Briere
stable and left it in Briere stable’s care for safekeeping, a bailment arrangement arose. Briere stable
provided it with shelter, food, water, training, grooming, and on occasion arranged for its medical care
and shoeing. When LaPlace removed the horse from the stable, Briere stable no longer had physical
possession and control of the animal, and the bailment relationship was suspended. At the time the
horse died, however, it was residing at Briere stable solely under the care of Briere stable. LaPlace was
not present at the time to exercise any control over the horse.”
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. Type of property
The dome is personal property. A key distinction between personal and real property is that real
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.
CHAPTER 49: PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS 433
3A. Type of bailment
Finney was the bailor and Denai was the bailee in an ordinary, voluntary, gratuitous bailment for the
sole benefit of the bailor. It is ordinary because it is not special—Denai is not a common carrier, a
49-1A. Gifts
(Chapter 49—Page 961)
Jaspal has made a gift causa mortis of the car to Friedrich. The gift meets all three tests to be effective:
49-2A. QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Bailments
CHAPTER 49: PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS 435
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
49-3A. Duties of the bailee
(Chapter 49—Page 967)
(a) This gratuitous bailment was created primarily for the benefit of the bailee. Under such
circumstances the bailee is required to use great care to protect the bailed property from loss or
49-4A. Duties of the bailor
(Chapter 49—Page 969)
One of the duties of the bailor is to provide the bailee with goods that are free from defects that could
cause injury to the bailee. If the bailed goods are defective, the bailor’s duty is to give the bailee
49-5A. Gratuitous bailment
(Chapter 49—Page 964)
49-6A. CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Found property
The money should be characterized as mislaid property, and the court should award it to Lock
Hospitality, as the owner of the premises. Property is abandoned when it is voluntarily thrown away or
49–7A. Gifts
(Chapter 49—Pages 959–961)
A gift is a transfer of property without consideration. To make a valid gift, the donor must part with the
control of the property that is to be the gift with “donative intent” (an intent that title to the property
49-8A. Bailment obligation
(Chapter 49—Pages 966 & 967–969)
No. The jury verdict was affirmed. An earlier case set forth the proper measurement of damages to be
applied in this case. “There, the court found that when the owner of the aircraft entrusted it to a repair
49–9A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Gifts
(a) The three elements of a gift are the donor’s intent to make it, the donor’s (or agent’s)
delivery of it, and the donee’s acceptance of it. Broadly applying those requirements, the trial court held
that “the passing of the ring was a completed gift on the transfer of the ring to” Campbell. The court
stated that as soon as Campbell received the ring and accepted it, it became a “final” gift and “nothing
else that happens thereafter changes it. I think that engagement rings are gifts.”
On appeal, Crippen argued that the transfer of the engagement ring was a conditional gift, given
in contemplation of marriage. He asserted that, in the case of a conditional gift, “if and when the
condition, i.e., the marriage, does not occur, the gift fails and the donor is entitled to the return of the
ring.”
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment, however, and ordered Campbell to
return the ring to Crippen. The appellate court recognized that “the clear weight of authority in this
country is contrary to the trial court’s ruling in this case. . . . In our society, an engagement ring—i.e., a
gift incidental to an engagement—is the symbol and token of a couple’s agreement to marry. As such,
marriage is an implied condition of the transfer of title to the ring and, thus, the gift does not become
absolute until the marriage occurs. Put another way, marriage is a condition precedent before
ownership of an engagement ring vests in the donee.”
The donor’s intent “is precisely what is at issue here. Whether or not a gift [is] unconditional is a
question of intent. . . . If the donor does not intend to make a completed and irrevocable gift—if,
instead, he intends to make a conditional gift—then a conditional gift it is.” The court cited examples of
other conditional gifts: a church member’s gift of money to a church conditioned on the church’s
continued existence; an organization’s gift of money to a university for the construction of a dormitory
conditioned on the dormitory being named “Confederate Memorial Hall”; a decedent’s bequest of real
property to his caretaker conditioned on her continued performance of care-taking duties; a father’s gift
of a car to his daughter purportedly conditioned on various criteria of good behavior; and a man’s gift of
money to a woman conditioned on his failure to return from his travels.
(b) In the Crippen case, the appellate pointed out that “there are cases holding that a donee
is entitled to retain an engagement ring when the donor is responsible for the failed engagement.” Here,
however, the court “decline[d] to follow these cases because we believe the rule adopted by us is more
in keeping with the essence of what occurs, and what is contemplated, at the time of an engagement. If
and when that which the parties contemplated—the marriage—does not occur, the engagement ring
CHAPTER 49: PERSONAL PROPERTY AND BAILMENTS 439
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 ensue, and when the marriage
does not occur, the ring must be returned at the donor’s request, then the creditor here might be
substituted for the donor and be allowed to recover the ring to cover the debt. Under that reasoning,
however, if Crippen and Campbell had married, the condition for the “finality” of the gift would have
been met, the gift would have become absolute, and Crippen’s creditor might not have been able to
reach it.
ANSWER TO VIDEO QUESTION NO. 49–10
Personal Property and Bailments
(a) What type of bailment is discussed in the video? Vinny states in the video that he
“wasn’t a customer,” and Oscar says that Vinny “borrowed” the rug-cleaning machine from the
store. This is therefore an ordinary bailment for the sole benefit of the bailee, also called a
gratuitous bailment.
(b) What were Vinny’s duties with respect to the rug-cleaning machine? What standard
of care should apply? Vinny is the bailee in this situation and has two basic obligations: to take
appropriate care of the property and to return the property to Oscar. Because the bailment is
for the sole benefit of the bailee, Vinny will be held to a higher standard of care and will be liable
for damages caused by even slight negligence.
(c) Did Vinny exercise the appropriate degree of care? Why or why not? How would a
court decide this issue? The facts state that Vinny did not bother to vacuum the rug, pick up the