Question

In Ziva Jewelry v. Car Wash Headquarters, when a jewelry salesman left his car at a carwash, it was stolen with over $850,000 of jewelry hidden inside. When the jeweler sued the carwash, what was the result? The carwash was not liable because it could not have expected it was taking responsibility for over $850,000 worth of Jewelry when it accepted the salesman's vehicle The carwash was not liable for the stolen jewelry because there was no ballment formed The carwash was liable for the stolen jewelry because a baiment was formed The carwash was able because it took responsibility for the jewelry when it accepted the vehicle for service

Answer 1

1) The ruling was in favor of CWH. The court rules out that the CWH had know reason of knowing that the car had jewelry. Thus the correct option is:

The carwash was not liable because it could not have expected it was taking the responsibility for over $850,000 worth of jewelry.

Please post the other question separately. Thanks and good luck :)