Objective Memo
Name
Date
To: Insert Name
From: Insert Name
Subject: Possession of Chattel
Date: March 28, 2022
Issue
Is there any bail associated with the possession of chattel?
Brief Answer
Esther King lost the valuable item on the table of a well-known restaurant. Creating a bail is
not a viable solution because the client did not transfer the possession of the valuable item to
the restaurant but forgot it on the table. The restaurant and other institutions are not responsible
for taking care of accessories belonging to customers unless the management is charged with
this responsibility. Therefore, the valuable item was not in the possession of the restaurant and
Esther did not identify anyone as the Bailee.
Fact Statement
While visiting the Sunny Days Resort in Virginia Beach, Esther had various items and
accessories. All the items she carried with her would be used for various reasons. Among the
items Esther carried was the special pair of Dolce and Gabbana “blooming” glasses. This pair
of glasses was special to Esther because it belonged to Aunt Ruth who had given it to her for a
short period. The special pair of glasses was unique because of the specification; it had a floral
motif of crystals on the upper corners.
Esther left the hotel while holding the sunglasses in her hands. As she left, she left the pair of
glasses in the custody of the hotel staff in the front desk. Unfortunately, she did not give clear
details about it; she just put it there and left. She knew she would ask for the glasses when
checking out later that day.
Esther returned to the hotel room and prepared to leave. She began packing her possessions.
Immediately, she noticed her pair of sunglasses were missing. She carried everything with her
and boarded the elevator down to the lobby, addressed the front desk, and informed the staff
that she was ready to leave the establishment. At the lobby, Esther found a new front desk agent
called Carson. She immediately informed Carson that she wanted to have her sunglasses that
she had left at the front desk back because she was ready to leave. Carson wanted to know more
about the sunglasses from Esther. Consequently, Esther told Carson that she had left the
sunglasses with another front desk agent called Alex. It all happened the previous night. Esther
even thought that Alex had stored the sunglasses at the vault.
Carson took the initiative to try find the sunglasses from the vault. After a short time, Carson
accompanied by the hotel manager came back to Esther and confirmed to her that the
sunglasses were nowhere in the vault.
It was at this time that Esther realized the sunglasses had been stolen. She expressed her
devastation over the missing sunglasses. To her, it was a challenging and a tough moment
because the sunglasses belonged to Aunt Ruth. Her aunt adored her flower beds, and these
sunglasses always brought up happy memories of her. The situation presented a dilemma to
Esther; she did not want to sue the resort but wanted to recoup the cost of the Dolce & Gabbana
"blooming" sunglasses she lost during her vacation. She wanted to know if the hotel is
responsible for the sunglasses' disappearance.
Argument
This scenario presents a tort negligence. Apart from checking guests into their rooms,
distributing keys, answering questions and processing payments for all the hotel services, the
front desk agent is responsible for ensuring that the customers’ possessions left at the front
desk are safe. Equally, Esther did not do what she ought to have done while leaving the
sunglasses at the front desk. A tort negligence can be described as any behavior that fails to
match the level of care that a prudent individual would have practiced if they found themselves
in the similar situation. The behavior can be related to an action or omission. The four principles
of negligence that the behavvior of both the front desk agent and Esther practised are duty,
breach, causation and damage in the form of a loss. The front desk agent failed to practice
responsibility of taking care of the sunglasses that were left at the front desk. Alex’s failure to
be responsible amounts to breach of trust that other customers may have with the hotel.
However, the whole issue begins with Esther not giving the right information about the terms
for leaving the sunglasses at the front desk; Esther’s action is the cause of the entire problem.
The consequence is the loss of the sunglass.
This case can be compared to Andrea T. Morris v. Marsha Hamilton Case of 1983. The case
whose record number is 801921 was heard on April 29, 1983 by the Supreme Court of Virginia.
The Supreme Court heard that at around 11:30 p.m., Hamilton who had been working in the
kitchen took off his wristwatch and put in on the counter. Thirty minutes later, Hamilton left
the kitchen and the wristwatch on the counter because she could not continue working without
water. Hamilton left the kitchen while waiting for water before she could resume her duties.
Morris saw Hamilton’s watch, took it while looking for Hamilton because of safety reasons.
Unfortunately, she could not find Hamilton and could not remember where she kept it or the
person that she gave the watch to. Also, Hamilton’s fiancé saw the watch but did not take it
nor told Hamilton about it. The following day when Hamilton remembered she had left her
watch on the counter, she came to collect it but the maid who was there said she had not seen
the watch. Despite searching the entire house, the watch was never found. Hamilton alleged
that Morris was the Bailee and that she watch got lost in her possession. Morris conceded. The
court held that Morris’ conduct could not sufficiently constitute gross negligence based on the
evidence and the inferences (Andrea T. Morris v. Marsha Hamilton Case of 1983).
Conclusion
References
Dixon, B. Commercial and personal property law: Selected issues. Thomson Reuters
Journal, 77(3), 454-457 (2019)
Justia. Morris v. Hamilton 1983. Retrieved from
https://law.justia.com/cases/virginia/supremecourt/1983/801921-1.html
Keren-Paz, T. Torts, egalitarianism, and distributive justice. Routledge naïve theory of
ownership. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 102-113 2018
Nancekivell, S. E., Friedman, O., & Gelman, S. A. Ownership matters: People possess a
Professional Australia Ltd 2019
Tofaris, S. Duty of care in negligence: a return to orthodoxy? The Cambridge Law 2018
