Question

This case concerned an illicit purchase of smuggled gold with a purchase price of $409,000. The money was placed in a suitcase in a coin-operated locker owned and operated by American Locker Co. located in a Greyhound bus station, with the buyer and seller each having a key.

The seller’s accomplice used fraud to get a Greyhound employee to open the locker and then took the suitcase. When the seller discovered this, he sued Greyhound and American Locker. The jury, ruling for the plaintiff, found that a bailment had been created.

The Court of Appeals, however, reversed, concluding that a bailment could not have been created with a coin-operated locker because there was no common law notion of delivery for bailment purposes. The owner of the goods never gives up possession of the property because there is no “bailee” with a coin-operated locker.

Answer the following questions:

a.    Do you think the assessment of the loss fell on the proper party? Why or why not?

b.    Did the buyer and seller act ethically in suing Greyhound and American Locker? Whose fault was it that the money was stolen?

c.    What would be the impact on coin-operated locker businesses if the jury’s verdict were allowed to stand?

Answer 1

Do you think the assessment of the loss fell on the proper party? Why or why not?

            This is an opinion question, designed to stimulate class discussion. But, it’s hard to feel sorry for people who use bus station lockers to hold the proceeds for their black market sales and then lose the money to a more deceitful character.

2.         Did Magliocco act ethically in suing Greyhound and American Locker? Whose fault was it that the money was stolen?

            This is another opinion question.

3.         What would be the impact on coin-operated locker businesses if the jury’s verdict were allowed to stand?

            Who’s to know? If the use of such lockers were considered to be bailments, the cost of using them would probably increase.