Question

2. David is on a business trip. He drives his car and when he checks into the hotel he gives his car keys to the parking lot attendant. The hotel has a guarded underground parking lot. When he gives the attendant his car keys he does not tell him that in the trunk of the car is his mother's $ 25,000 diamond ring in a box. The next day when he requests that his car be brought up so he can use it to make a business meeting, he is told that it has been stolen. David wants to hold the hotel responsible for the loss of both his car and the ring. Discuss the probable success of his claims.

• Discuss the case by providing the facts, issue, holding and legal ruling that might occur if this situation became a lawsuit in court. In otherwards...You be the judge!  

• 3. Cheerio Tannenbaum is the rental agent for the Greatest High Rise Apartments in Philadelphia. While walking to work one day, Cheerio discovers an expensive ring lying on the curb. She gives the ring to her daughter, Sarah. On week later, Betsy Paull, the true owner of the ring, finds out that Cheerio had found the ring and demands it back. Discuss who should get the ring and why.

• Discuss the case by providing the facts, issue, holding and legal ruling that might occur if this situation became a lawsuit in court. In otherwards...You be the judge!  

• Due 3/22/19. Cited work do not use wikipedia. Use another source.

Answer 1

2) Here, this case is related to the bailment. It is when a person takes care of another person's property such as the parking lot attendent took the car keys from David which is an unspoken bailment. From my point of view, it can be said that the hotel is clearly liable for the loss of the car. As it is expected from the hotel that it would take care of the guests' belongings, so in case of stolen belongings, the hotel would be liable as it is stolen when it was taken care of by the hotel and because of the guest's negligence. So, here the hotel is clearly liable for the loss of the car and thus would need to prove the full coverage of the car. But, on the other hand, as the hotel staffs had no idea that there would be a $25,000 diamond ring and in that case, David too didn't informed that to the parking lot attendent, so the hotel would not be liable for the loss of the ring as David failed to inform the attendent regarding that ring. Hence, there is a full chance of success of the claim regarding the stolen car.

Hope this helps :)