Break-ups and possessions

adouglasmhor

antrobus wrote: »

The bailee is simply the person who has possession of the goods and the bailor is the person who owns the goods. Whatever 'personal relationship' might or might not have existed between the two at any point in time is of no legal consequence.

Unless of course the bailee and bailor are married or in a civil partnership, whatever. Which is the kind of 'personal relationship' recognised in law. Otherwise the law takes no account of who you have sex with, share meals with, etc.

No Bailment is soley about comercial (and contractual) transactions, not personal ones. No such (percieved) contract exists or did exist so there are no contractual obligations.

adouglasmhor

Three elements are generally necessary for the existence of a bailment: delivery, acceptance, and consideration.

Actual possession of or control over property must be delivered to a bailee in order to create a bailment. The delivery of actual possession of an item allows the bailee to accomplish his or her duties toward the property without the interference of others. Control over property is not necessarily the same as physical custody of it but, rather, is a type of constructive delivery. The bailor gives the bailee the means of access to taking custody of it, without its actual delivery. The law construes such action as the equivalent of the physical transfer of the item. The delivery of the keys to a safe-deposit box is constructive delivery of its contents.

A requisite to the creation of a bailment is the express or implied acceptance of possession of or control over the property by the bailee. A person cannot unwittingly become a bailee. Because a bailment is a contract, knowledge and acceptance of its terms are essential to its enforcement.

Consideration, the exchange of something of value, must be present for a bailment to exist. Unlike the consideration required for most contracts, as long as one party gives up something of value, such action is regarded as good consideration. It is sufficient that the bailor suffer loss of use of the property by relinquishing its control to the bailee; the bailor has given up something of value—the immediate right to control the property.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bailment

Hintza

I think this article covers it:-


This act says that if you want to dispose of goods belonging to another person, you must first write to them asking them to remove the goods. The letter should say:

What the items you hold are

Where they are being held, and

How long they will be available for collection before you dispose of or sell them

You need to give a reasonable period of time for their collection. I would suggest at least 14 days. The act says it must be “such as will afford the bailor a reasonable opportunity of taking delivery of the goods“. You also need to give them details of how to contact you.

So far as delivery of the letter is concerned, this act was passed in 1977, which was before text messaging and emails were available. It says that the letter should be sent by recorded delivery and therefore, if there is any chance that the lodger is going to come back and complain, this is what you should do. However there is no harm in following this up with an email and text message if you wish.

If the lodger fails to respond to your letter, you can then sell or dispose of the items.

RosiPossum

Thanks!
I've given her the link so she is reading this, but doesn't have an account.
You've all been very helpful.
R

unholyangel

adouglasmhor wrote: »

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bailment

Really would help if you weren't quoting American law.

Try this one:http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/the-concept-of-bailment-generally.php

Bailment is not a concept that is new to English common law. Rather it is a principle which is firmly entrenched in English property and contract law. It has been recorded as early as the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in cases in these areas of law. The most significant and well-known of these cases would be the case of Coggs v Bernard , where Holt CJ sought to define the concept of bailment in arguably its most comprehensive form:
And there are six sorts of bailments. The first sort of bailment is, a bare naked bailment of goods, delivered by one man to another to keep for the use of the bailor; and this I call a depositum, and it is that sort of bailment which I mentioned in Southcote's case (1601) Cro Eliz 815.
The second sort is, when goods or chattels that are useful, are lent to a friend gratis, to be used by him; and this is called commodatum , because the thing is to be restored in specie .
The third sort is, when goods are left with the bailee to be used by him for hire; this is called locatio et conductio, and the lender is called locator , and the borrower conductor .
The fourth sort is, when goods or chattels are delivered to another as a pawn, to be a security to him for money borrowed of him by the bailor; and this is called in Latin vadium, and in English a pawn or a pledge.
The fifth sort is when goods or chattels are delivered to be carried, or something is to be done about them for a reward to be paid by the person who delivers them to the bailee, who is to do the thing about them.

bod1467

What is the sixth sort?

unholyangel

bod1467 wrote: »

What is the sixth sort?

That was my fault! Cut it off early

The sixth sort is when there is a delivery of goods or chattels to somebody, who is to carry them, or do something about them gratis, without any rewards for such his work or carriage, which is this present case. I mention these things, not so much that they are all of them so necessary in order to maintain the proposition which is to be proved, as to clear the reason of the obligation, which is upon persons in cases of trust.

Blackbeard_of_Perranporth

If BoPsie kicked me out, I would make sure she packed her bags and was gone within the hour. And your 6 year rule will be sodden in the puddle.

As for the car insurance, you agree to pay in installments for the year, but always are fully paid up prior to the end of the year, i.e. we always have 10 payments, plus a lrger initial payment. if the person does not pay the insurance, the company would inform them that in x, normally 28 days, the insurance would be cancelled. They would not attempt to collect another payment.

As for the BF, she is best without.

And BoPsie. Sha has no bags.

adouglasmhor

unholyangel wrote: »

Really would help if you weren't quoting American law.

Try this one:http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/essays/the-concept-of-bailment-generally.php

I think you will find Sir William Jones was not American.

antrobus

adouglasmhor wrote: »

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bailment

According to West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

Meanwhile, back in that jurisdiction known as England and Wales:-

Broadly, the transfer of possession (and not ownership) of goods by the owner (the bailor) to another person (the bailee) so that they might be used for a specified purpose on condition that they are returned to, or in accordance with the instructions of, the bailor, or kept until he reclaims them. The bailee does not own the goods, but has possession of them. The bailee has a duty to take reasonable care of the goods and return them in accordance with the terms of any express or implied contract of bailment.

http://uk.practicallaw.com/9-381-8490