John Vs Gilbert Case Study

858 Words4 Pages
Question #1 John v. Gilbert Gilbert’s argument was that lottery ticket was his and he did not mean to throw it away. While Johns argument is that when he found it that it was abandoned property which is property which the owner has voluntarily parted with and has no intention of recovering it. Once Gilbert threw the ticket out Gilbert forfeit his ownership of it. It also means that the finder i.e. John can claim title that is superior to that of any other person including the true owner i.e. Gilbert. Since a person may acquire rights in personal property possessing unclaimed, lost, or abandoned property I believe that John has a solid case and will most likely win this case. Question #2 Jack v. Sally Sally’s argument is that…show more content…
Bob leaving personal items in the designated locker room constitutes a mutual benefit bailment and strict form of liability. Because the employees are required to take off their street clothes and change into protective clothing. Therefore, making it the duty of the bailer (AMC) to warn of any defects in the locker. (Even if AMC knows of no defects it is fully responsible if anything happens). Given that strict liability makes AMC absolutely liable, regardless of negligence, for all loss or damage to goods in their possession. The only exception is if it is caused by an act of God, an act of a public enemy, an order of a public authority, or the nature of the goods which it wasn’t. Also, the sign that AMC will not be responsible for loss of property in the locker room will in not exculpate AMC. Bob has to prove that there was an assumption that the law makes against AMC. He can prove this by proving that he had placed his wallet and watch in the locker room and when he returned the items were missing. Bob and AMC had a mutual bailment which means they are responsible for his missing
Open Document