JJB gave grandsons ipod away.

Crazy_Jamie

OlliesDad wrote:

]The only rights against JJB would be under Bailment law, but one of the conditions of the law is that JJb would have had to voluntarily taken possesion of the ipod. As this condition is not met, there is no claim against JJB.

Kudos for knowing about Bailment; I am a little surprised it took nearly 100 posts for someone to mention it. However, there is a slight but significant error in your interpretation of the law. Bailment does not have to be voluntary. Involuntary (or Implied/Constructive) Bailment exists, and this is a prime example where it would be applied. In this case the iPod was found and taken in for safekeeping by the staff as lost property, and by virtue of that action the staff exercised control over the iPod. The JJB staff would owe a duty of care as a result, albeit one with a much lower standard than if the bailment had been voluntary.

The issue of whether or not JJB would be liable for giving the iPod to someone else is by no means cut and dry, though. As I said, the standard of care in this case would be lower than if JJB had been paid to keep the item (for example, akin to when you pay for a coat to be left in a cloakroom). The issue therefore becomes what exactly JJB should have been expected to do legally. Would it be reasonable for the person behind the counter to check whether the woman was the owner of the iPod? Yes, it would. But the woman had asked for an iPhone; in the circumstances is it reasonable to expect the sales assistant to know the difference between an iPhone and an iPod (they do look very similar)? Possibly not. And if not, would it be deemed sufficient for the sales assistant's purposes that the woman asked for a specific item that was behind the counter, therefore requiring no further checks to be made? There is certainly an argument for that.

The bottom line really is that for an involuntary bailee to be found liable for loss of the bailor there has to be almost gross negligence. Given the above the OP would struggle to establish that here.

It's by no means a lost cause. But nor is it a very strong case. In the circumstances I could very easily see a Judge ruling that JJB had discharged their duty under bailment. That doesn't mean that it's not worth a letter outlining the position, but if JJB meet that letter with a strong denial thought will have to be given to further steps to be taken.

What I would argue is that JJB by taking control of the goods misappropriated them from the owner.
The tort is one of strict liability. What you would have to proove was that JJB took the goods, and then gave them away.

Unfortunately, as others have pointed out, this argument would be bound to fail. JJB have not misappropriated the goods in this incident; the iPod was left in the store by the owner and it was taken in for safekeeping. That is not misappropriation whichever way you spin it. The only way there would be an argument for conversion is if JJB had refused to return the iPod to the owner, but no such situation arose here.

sexyboy wrote:

my view as a lawyer is you're not going to get anywhere with JJB. they are not responsible for the criminal actions of customers. they responded reasonably when asked if someone had handed in an ipod. don't try to attach blame on a member of staff who acted like many of us would have.
However a complaint (in writing: no telephone calls, informal chats etc) to the senior officer at the police station will result in a prosecution and compensation being payable by the offender.

A fair point, though simply because the iPod was stolen (and, for the avoidance of doubt, it clearly was stolen) it doesn't mean that a civil action is bound to fail. The fact that the goods were taken out of JJB's possession by virtue of a criminal act does work in JJB's favour in relation to any civil claim, but the duty of care is still there irrespective.

If I was to give a gut reaction on the likelihood of recovering the value of the iPod from JJB under Bailment, I would have to say that it is less than 50%, for the reasons I have put above. But as I also said, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth a letter.

Crazy_Jamie

ringo_24601 wrote: »

BBC article.. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8129534.stm

The question is did JJB take "Reasonable steps" to find the correct owner? I don't believe they did.

The distinction is that JJB did not seek to keep the iPod. It was given to another person in good faith under the honest belief that that person was the iPod's rightful owner. That is a different scenario to that in the article, where the question is whether a person who finds property belonging to another can keep it for themselves. JJB did not make an attempts to keep the property for themselves here.

Taking 'reasonable steps' to establish the identity of the owner would form part of the analysis into whether the standard of care had been met, but as I said above that standard is not very high here because the bailment is not voluntary.

[Deleted User]

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Taking 'reasonable steps' to establish the identity of the owner would form part of the analysis into whether the standard of care had been met, but as I said above that standard is not very high here because the bailment is not voluntary.

I think it would be quite essential to find out the JJB corporate policy on lost and found goods - it's more than likely the broke their own policy, even if they didn't break the law

Freddie_Snowbits

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Your example is still balls.
your link for a local paper in Grimsby is a special case. Lying next to a bin made it probable it was abandoned not lost as the article makes clear.

The remark you make against the coats. They do not come into my possession, they are left in the entrance.

'but as soon as you pick them up you take possesion'

Wrong, I do not touch them. It is the same in youth work, where some tend to leave a wadge of cash on the counter. I do not touch it as I am not responsilbe for their money. If it is not there when they come back for it, they have lost it through their negligence, not mine. Funny how they do not do the said today!

'you do if I ask for it otherwise you are a thief like your missus'

Actually I have no responsibility for your neglience in not keeping the ball on your land at all.

'Balls'

28 days is considered a reasonable time, it stems from Time in Memorium

'well that would save me asking for it back'

Then you would have expended a lot of energy and gopt nowhere

pulliptears

Personally I think JJB is clouding the issue, I'd forget about them and just go straight for the woman who stole it by deception. This IS a police matter and should be a fairly easy crime to deal with given the CCTV and the fact the woman paid on card.

I'd be making a nuisance of myself down the local station until I was taken seriously.

adouglasmhor

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

The remark you make against the coats. They do not come into my possession, they are left in the entrance.

'but as soon as you pick them up you take possesion'

Wrong, I do not touch them. How is it wrong? I said as soon as you pick them up if you don't fine you have no responsibility then. If they ask for their coat and you have touched it and refuse, you=thiefIt is the same in youth work, where some tend to leave a wadge of cash on the counter. I do not touch it as I am not responsilbe for their money. If it is not there when they come back for it, they have lost it through their negligence, not mine. Funny how they do not do the said today!

'you do if I ask for it otherwise you are a thief like your missus'

Actually I have no responsibility for your neglience in not keeping the ball on your land at all.You have a responsibility to hand it back when asked (unless it is stuck soemwhere that is tough luck in that caseand no right to keep it. You can caim me for any damage and inconvenience though, punting it back over is fine though

'Balls'

28 days is considered a reasonable time, it stems from Time in Memoriumwhere did you get that from that isn't even a phrase, it doesn't mean you can keep it for 28 days either in any case.

'well that would save me asking for it back'

Then you would have expended a lot of energy and gopt nowhere What energy?

You can't even read properly.

Freddie_Snowbits

Another point, we hear little aboit car radios being stolen in this age, perhaps that is because most are coded.

Is not the problem that these devices are easily wiped and hence attractive. if they could be disabled in someone, their intrinsic value to the opportunist thief would be reduced to nothing.

Uhhhm

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/video/could-technology-help-thwart-mobile-thieves?/1004850.article

pulliptears

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

Another point, we hear little aboit car radios being stolen in this age, perhaps that is because most are coded.

Is not the problem that these devices are easily wiped and hence attractive. if they could be disabled in someone, their intrinsic value to the opportunist thief would be reduced to nothing.

Uhhhm

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/video/could-technology-help-thwart-mobile-thieves?/1004850.article

In this case it is noted that when the woman went back in she asked for an iphone. iphones can be blocked (you can mask the IMEI on an iphone 2, but 3 and 4 are blockable) so in this case she didn't really care.

That said, thieves are usually stupid and will steal anything they have the opportunity to steal so I doubt it would be all that successful.

Freddie_Snowbits

adouglasmhor wrote: »

You can't even read properly.

uhhhm.

How is it wrong? I said as soon as you pick them up if you don't fine you have no responsibility then. If they ask for their coat and you have touched it and refuse, you=thief

That is why I do not handle the items. Otherwise every wise kid comes into the youth club, throughs down 20p and then shouts out they have lost £50!

You have a responsibility to hand it back when asked (unless it is stuck soemwhere that is tough luck in that caseand no right to keep it. You can caim me for any damage and inconvenience though, punting it back over is fine though

Wrong again, it is my yard and I will do what I like.

where did you get that from that isn't even a phrase, it doesn't mean you can keep it for 28 days either in any case.

I could take some time to consider looking for your property, does not mean that I will keep it.

Going back to your first point

How is it wrong? I said as soon as you pick them up if you don't fine you have no responsibility then. If they ask for their coat and you have touched it and refuse, you=thief

So in the case here of the shop assistant, next time becasue of the agro that is caused by handling the item, they just leave it in the changing room or whatever and someone else walks off with it, their hands are clean.

adouglasmhor

Freddie_Snowbits wrote: »

You have a responsibility to hand it back when asked (unless it is stuck somewhere that is tough luck in that case and no right to keep it. You can caim me for any damage and inconvenience though, punting it back over is fine though

Wrong again, it is my yard and I will do what I like.

From http://www.family-solicitors.co.uk/balls-games.htm

Family Law - Neighbours

Balls and ball games

If a child throws a ball into a neighbour's property, the neighbour should either hand it back or allow it to be collected. However, as it is a trespass for the ball to cross the neighbour's boundary, even if it was unintentional, the neighbour would be entitled to financial compensation if any damage has been caused.

As you are a responsible citizen and don't like wasting public money on police dealing with trivia I would expect we could sort it like adults, I would admit to owing you a pint for the inconvenience (and making good any damage if any as well). But the law of the land applies everywhere; it doesn't stop at your boundaries.

If it happened umpteen times - you are not responsible for any damage that happened to the ball when it went over, if it hit a rake or garden fork or landed in a bonfire, very unfortunate how sad never mind.