We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Lost Property Responsibility
Comments
-
In my unprofessional opinion, I'd say bailment law should cover this, as in order for security to x-ray/scan/etc the item, they need to take possession of it - after all, it goes into their equipment, so they do have possession of it, albeit briefly, and therefore have a care of duty to return it to the correct owner.
Now, whether having it go along a conveyor belt and hoping that the owner will notice it constitutes adequate care of duty, I suspect this might be the part that they'll dispute.
Also, check Gin v Wackenhut, as this is an example where it was deemed bailment occurs during airport security scans.0 -
This thread is over a year old...One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0
-
There does seem to be a large number of dead threads being resurrected at the moment.I’m a Forum Ambassador and I support the Forum Team on the eBay, Auctions, Car Boot & Jumble Sales, Boost Your Income, Praise, Vents & Warnings, Overseas Holidays & Travel Planning , UK Holidays, Days Out & Entertainments boards. If you need any help on these boards, do let me know.. Please note that Ambassadors are not moderators. Any posts you spot in breach of the Forum Rules should be reported via the report button, or by emailing forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com.All views are my own and not the official line of MoneySavingExpert.0
-
In my unprofessional opinion, I'd say bailment law should cover this, as in order for security to x-ray/scan/etc the item, they need to take possession of it - after all, it goes into their equipment, so they do have possession of it, albeit briefly, and therefore have a care of duty to return it to the correct owner.
Now, whether having it go along a conveyor belt and hoping that the owner will notice it constitutes adequate care of duty, I suspect this might be the part that they'll dispute.
Also, check Gin v Wackenhut, as this is an example where it was deemed bailment occurs during airport security scans.
why post when its a year old0 -
A year old or day old, atleast the post makes a valid and useful point which may one day help another vsitor to the website.
Could be worse, could be an "I agree." post
0 -
A year old or day old, atleast the post makes a valid and useful point which may one day help another vsitor to the website.
Could be worse, could be an "I agree." post
That's true, I agree.One important thing to remember is that when you get to the end of this sentence, you'll realise it's just my sig.0 -
Rebroad's last post was about a year ago, and that too was on a thread over a year old.
:rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455K Spending & Discounts
- 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.1K Life & Family
- 260.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards