DB #6B This case concerned an illicit purchase of smuggled gold with a purchase
ID: 418935 • Letter: D
Question
DB #6B This case concerned an illicit purchase of smuggled gold with a purchase price of $409,000. The money was placed in a suitcase in a coin-operated locker owned and operated by American Locker Co. located in a Greyhound bus station, with the buyer and seller each having a key. The seller's accomplice used fraud to get a Greyhound employee to open the locker and then took the suitcase. When the seller discovered this, he sued Greyhound and American Locker. The jury, ruling for the plaintiff, found that a bailment had been created. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, concluding that a bailment could not have been created with a coin-operated locker because there was no common law notion of delivery for bailment purposes. The owner of the goods never gives up possession of the property because there is no "bailee" with a coin-operated locker Answer the following questions a. Do you think the assessment of the loss fell on the proper party? Why or why not? b. Did the buyer and seller act ethically in suing Greyhound and American Locker? Whose fault was it that the money was stolen? C. What would be the impact on coin-operated locker businesses if the jury's verdict were allowed to stand?Explanation / Answer
1) No it does not fell on the proper party as the user who retains a key to the locker never relinquishes primary physical control of the
items stored, even if the person making the lockers available has a master key.
2) Yes they acted ethically in suing greyhound and American locker as the possession of the stored goods cannot be given to the bailee involving the use of coin operated locker
3) If the jury’s verdict were allowed to stand it means that use of such lockers are considered to be bailments and the cost of using them would probably increase
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.