Bailments
Another issue for Martin is his car. Martin drove his GTO to a restaurant and upon arriving, handed over his keys to person named Benjamin who identified as the restaurant valet. Upon deciding to leave the restaurant, Martin walked outside and noticed the valet was not present and neither was his car. Martin asked the restaurant hostess for help and she informed him that there was no valet service that day and that Benjamin, who was once employed there, had resigned a day earlier.
Bailment. In short, the GTO was unlawfully driven away and sold by a person posing as a valet. The issue under consideration is bailment which is defined as “a non-ownership transfer of possession” (Legal Information Institute, 2015c, para 1). A normal bailment process is for the bailor to transfer property to a bailee for a limited time or for a specific purpose. Martin (bailor) gave the keys to Benjamin (bailee) to drive and park his GTO (the bailment). The breach occurred when Benjamin drove away with the car and sold it – the unlawful actions. Consequently, North Carolina General Statues § 99A-1 (2014) defined the civil remedies for criminal acts specific to this case such that:
“…when personal property is wrongfully taken and carried away from the owner…in lawful possession of such property without his …show more content…
Although neither the dealer nor the new owner knew the car was stolen and conducted good faith transactions, an adequate VIN check would have reported that the vehicle was stolen. I perceive that one or the other was negligent on this regard; a further investigation would be required to determine specific negligence. My interpretation of the laws suggests that the power resides with Martin because it was his stolen car. With respect to North Carolina General Statues § 99A-1 (2014), I would advise Martin to file lawsuits against the dealer and the owner for negligence in conducting a VIN check and a separate claim against the new owner to recover his
Another issue for Martin is his car. Martin drove his GTO to a restaurant and upon arriving, handed over his keys to person named Benjamin who identified as the restaurant valet. Upon deciding to leave the restaurant, Martin walked outside and noticed the valet was not present and neither was his car. Martin asked the restaurant hostess for help and she informed him that there was no valet service that day and that Benjamin, who was once employed there, had resigned a day earlier.
Bailment. In short, the GTO was unlawfully driven away and sold by a person posing as a valet. The issue under consideration is bailment which is defined as “a non-ownership transfer of possession” (Legal Information Institute, 2015c, para 1). A normal bailment process is for the bailor to transfer property to a bailee for a limited time or for a specific purpose. Martin (bailor) gave the keys to Benjamin (bailee) to drive and park his GTO (the bailment). The breach occurred when Benjamin drove away with the car and sold it – the unlawful actions. Consequently, North Carolina General Statues § 99A-1 (2014) defined the civil remedies for criminal acts specific to this case such that:
“…when personal property is wrongfully taken and carried away from the owner…in lawful possession of such property without his …show more content…
Although neither the dealer nor the new owner knew the car was stolen and conducted good faith transactions, an adequate VIN check would have reported that the vehicle was stolen. I perceive that one or the other was negligent on this regard; a further investigation would be required to determine specific negligence. My interpretation of the laws suggests that the power resides with Martin because it was his stolen car. With respect to North Carolina General Statues § 99A-1 (2014), I would advise Martin to file lawsuits against the dealer and the owner for negligence in conducting a VIN check and a separate claim against the new owner to recover his