Personal Property for Person Suffering from Alzheimers Disease Assignment

Personal Property for Person Suffering from Alzheimers Disease - Assignment Example The appellee used the parking garage for purposes of parking his automobile since the public was invited to use it. The parking garage in which the appellee parked his car was owned by the appellant, and before parking his automobile, the appellee received a receipt to allow for the same. The nature of the relationship between the appellee and the appellant, therefore, qualifies for express bailment. The express bailment, in this case, is written as is proven by the receipt, a written confirmation. The bailment at will would depend on the amount of time that the bailor, Mr Allen, would need to use the parking garage, and would be terminated once he submitted the receipt to the attendant at the single exit of the parking garage. The bailee would act as a warehouse because there would be a compensation for the period of time used to store the automobile.The bailment, in this case, was for the mutual benefit of both the bailor who is the appellee in this case and the bailee who is the a ppellant (Twomey and Jennings). While the bailor would have his automobile parked in a safe environment, the bailee would receive a payment that is in relation to the amount of the time that the parking garage was used. When bailment is for the mutual benefit of both bailor and bailee, the bailee is liable to the bailor for ordinary negligence, and the bailee bears the duty of ordinary care to his property (Twomey and Jennings).Though the appellee and the appellant have a bailor-bailee kind of relationship, there is no liability to be borne by the bailee. Any liability that would have been shouldered by the appellant was disqualified by the receipt purchased by the appellee. The ticket bore clear instructions that it only served the purpose of gauging the time an automobile has been in the parking garage and not for identification of the vehicle. Though there was an attendant present at the exit of the parking garage, the attendant had no means of identifying whether persons left wi th the right cars. The ticket also made it clear that the appellant would not be held responsible for losses incurred by theft,  collision or otherwise; and that automobiles were parked at owner’s risk.