Question

Sharon parked her automobile in a parking lot owned by the Parking Corporation. At the request of the parking lot attendant, she left her keys at the attendant's office and received a numbered ticket as her receipt for the payment of the parking fee. The ticket had the following words written on the back: “Rental of space only. Not responsible for loss or damage to car or contents however caused.” A 50 cm. Square sign on the side of the attendant’s office contained a similar message. Before leaving her keys with the attendant, she made certain that the doors of the vehicle were securely locked, as she had left a box containing her camcorder and computer in the trunk of the car. Sharon was not aware that the attendant closed his ticket booth at midnight, at which time he delivered the keys to the cars on the lot to the attendant of the parking lot across the street. The adjacent lot was also owned by the Corporation, but it remained open until 2 a.m. Sharon returned to the parking lot to retrieve her automobile shortly after midnight, at which time she discovered no attendant in charge, and her vehicle missing. By chance, she noticed an attendant on duty at the parking lot across the street, and reported the missing vehicle to him, only to find the attendant in possession of her keys. The police discovered Sharon’s automobile a few days later in another part of the city. The vehicle had been damaged and stripped of its contents, including her camcorder and computer. Sharon brought an action against the Parking Corporation for her loss.

Question : Identify the issues in this case and prepare the arguments that Sharon and the Parking Corporation might use in their respective claim and defence.

Answer 1

Answer:-

Sharon had left her vehicle in the parking part, paid the parking expense and had left the keys in the orderly's office. This is essentially a case of bailment where Sharon is the bailor and Parking Corporation is the bailee. Under bailment, the bailee holds standard obligation of care for the bailor and subsequently should deal with the great under belonging.

Sharon's vehicle was taken from the parking parcel. This implies there was a break in the obligation of care of the bailee and accordingly the bailor can sue the bailee for the lost vehicle.

The protection which the Parking Corporation can claim is that Sharon had been given a ticket which had a reasonable admonition that the Parking Corporation can't be considered answerable for misfortune or harm to vehicle or substance.

Henceforth there was no obligation of care included and along these lines the Parking Corporation can't be accused from Sharon's taken vehicle.

Please like the answer.