Agenda for 2nd Class Admin stuff Review of Monday’s class Finders Distribute Bailments handout Office hours: Fridays noon-1PM Model answers to webpage using HoGo Review of Monday’s class Finders Introduction to Bailments

Assignment for Next Class Review any questions we did not discuss in class today Bailment handout Prepare to answer all questions in the bailment packet Writing assignments from Bailment handout WG1 (Qs 1 & 8), WG2 (Qs 2 & 9), WG3 (Qs 3 & 10), …. WG7 (Qs 7 & 14) Optional Examples & Explanations. Ch 3 (Finders) Examples & Explanations. Ch. 4 (Bailments)

Review of Last Class Root of title to land in Discovery and Conquest Alternative: Locke’s Labor Theory Marshall may have felt politically compelled to recognize title derived from grants from US government Marshall could have based decision on Proclamation of 1763 Legitimate US government purchases from Native Americans But Proclamation of 1763 may have been unconstitutional Purchases from Native Americans were of dubious legality b/c of Sellers’ claims may have been weak, disputed, or bogus Duress, misunderstanding Opinion (and much of Western law) rewards and facilitates intensive, permanent use of land rather than preservation of land in natural state Temporary use More generally Court opinions are open to debate and criticism Often alternative ways to reach same result

Armory v Delamirie Armory, chimney sweep, found ring with jewel. Amory brought ring to Delamirie’s goldsmith shop. Apprentice returned ring w/o jewel. Armory sued Delamirie. Why not sue apprentice? Court For Armory. Delamirie must pay amount equal to most valuable stone that would fit in jewel. Alternative remedy: return of jewel Why didn’t request? Holding The finder of a jewel, though he does not by such finding acquire an absolute property or ownership, yet he has such a property as will enable him to keep it against all but the rightful owner.

Questions on Armory I 1) Do you think the Court reached the right result? How do you think Armory got possession of the jewel? Why do you think Delamirie did not return the jewel to Armory? Are there answers to these questions that might suggest that the case was wrongly decided? Can you argue that the case was, nevertheless, rightly decided? 2) Why do you think the court required the defendant to pay damages equal to the value of the best jewel that could fit in the socket? Would it not have been more just to have ordered payment of an amount equal to the average jewel that would fit in the socket? Same facts as in Armory v. Delamirie, except the true owner, Lord Rasmussen, arrived in the shop as Armory was arguing with Delamirie’s apprentice. Lord Rasmussen asked for his ring back. Is the apprentice legally obligated to give the ring and stone to Armory or Lord Rasmussen? What if the apprentice isn’t sure whether the ring and stone belong to Lord Rasmussen? Consider outcome if apply holding announced in Amory, most just outcome, holding, policy.

Questions on Armory II 5. Same facts as in Armory v. Delamirie, except Delamirie recognized the ring and stone as belonging to Lord Rasmussen. 6. Armory was Delamirie’s gardener. While digging a hole for a rose bush that Delamirie wanted to plant, Armory found a ring with a large diamond. Delamirie happened to be strolling nearby at the time, saw the ring in Armory’s hand, and asked Armory to give him the ring. Is Amory legally obligated to give the ring to Delamirie? 7. Armory found the ring on the floor of a café owned by Delamirie. Armory went to Delamirie, told Delamirie that he had found a ring, showed it to him, and told Delamirie that he (Armory) would give it to anyone who could credibly prove that he or she was the owner of the ring. Delamirie asked Armory to give him the ring. Is Armory legally obligated to give Delamirie the ring?

Questions on Armory III 8. As in the original case, Armory was a chimney sweep who found the ring. After finding the ring, he put it in his pocket and started walking to Delamirie’s goldsmith shop to have the ring appraised. Unfortunately, Armory’s pocket had a hole in it, and the ring fell out. When Armory got to the goldsmith’s shop, he was dismayed that he was unable to find the ring. Meanwhile, J. Amour Esq. was walking nearby, saw the ring on sidewalk, and picked it up. Immediately ascertaining its great value, Armour went to the goldsmith shop owned by his good friend, Delamirie. Armour gave the ring to Delamirie for appraisal. Armory, who was still in the goldsmith’s shop looking through his pockets for the ring, recognized the ring and told Delamirie that the ring Amour had just given him (Delamirie) was the ring that Armory had found earlier. To whom is Delamirie legally obligated to give the ring? 9. Japanese law requires finders to return the object to the owner or submit it to the chief of police within seven days. The object is held at the police station for six months. If owner claims the object within six months, the owner is obligated to pay the finder a reward equal to between 5% and 20% of the object’s value, depending on the kind of property and the circumstances. If the owner does not claim the object within six months, the object is given back to the finder. Do you think that is a good system? Is it better than the rule established in Armory v. Delamirie?

Bailments I Typical situations Owner gives car (and keys) to parking valet Owner puts objects in bank safe deposit box Opening box requires 2 keys – 1 held by owner and 1 held by bank Not bailment -- Parking car in unattended, metered outdoor lot 4 elements Delivery of personal property by owner or prior possessor (bailor) to another (bailee) For limited purpose (e.g. safekeeping, repair, or transport) with expectation of return in same condition Acceptance by bailee Bailment may arise out of Explicit contract Bailor and bailee agree in writing or orally Conduct Bailor gives object to bailee under circumstances that both would ordinarily understand imply bailment E.g. Driver gives keys to car to valet Constructive bailment Finder is bailee for owner

Bailments I Obligations of bailee Generally Deliver object to bailor upon demand Bailee strictly liable for misdelivery or non-delivery Safeguard the object Bailee usually liable if object damaged through negligence This is “common law” of bailment May be modified by state courts or state legislatures May be modified by statute E.g, UCC says warehouse only liable for misdelivery if negligent May be modified by contract E.g. contract that says bailee only liable for misdelivery if negligent E.g. contract that says no bailment (e.g. recipient not liable even for negligent damage or misdelivery) Some states may not enforce E.g. limitation of liability to $1000 Bailment rules are “default” rules Can be modified by explicit agreement Very few contract rules are “mandatory”