Question

Roach owned a truck with a large crane attached. Roach took the truck to Vern’s Auto to have the crane removed with the intention of mounting it on another vehicle in the future. Vern’s allowed Roach to leave the crane in its yard, assuring him it would be safe. A few months later, Roach decided to sell the crane. When he went to get the crane, it was gone. Vern’s had no idea what had happened to it, and because they had charged nothing for storing the crane, it was not interested in finding out. QUESTIONS: Is Vern’s responsible for the missing crane? What are the determining factors? What information is missing? What steps should Roach and Vern’s have taken to safeguard the crane?

Answer 1

.Yes, going to me, Vern is responsible for the missing crane because if we see from the legal point of view, they both were in bailment relationship, i.e., Bailor Bailee agreement under which it is the responsibility of Vern to take care of the property which he possesses as a result of the agreement.

The determining factors are as follows:

1. Acceptance: Vern gave his acceptance to accept the crane willingly without any force by anyone.

2. Knowledge: knowledge about the position is also a requisite to determine the relationship. Here, Vern has the knowledge that it's Roach's crane. Even the assured Roach that it would be safe.

3. Temporary transfer: in the bailment agreement there is a temporary transfer of possession and ownership is not transferred.

Information is missing whether Roach gives permission to Vern to use it or not.

Steps Roach and Vern should have taken to safeguard the crane are as follows:

1. Roach should have approached or contacted earlier in order to acknowledge the situation of his crane.

2. Vern should have understood it is a responsibility to take care of the crane and should have taken the required steps in order to you sure it's proper safety from any damage or theft.

**Please leave a thumbs-up if you found this answer helpful.