Quiz 49: Personal Property and Bailments
Crane Dilemma: In the case of APL Limited v. Washington State Department of Revenue , 154 Wash.App 1020 (2010) the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Revenue. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded to the trial court for further determination. Determining whether the cranes were fixtures was important because the status would govern whether sales tax would be owed for their rental. In this case, the court reviewed the intent of the Port to permanently affix the cranes to the terminal.
Gifts: A gift is a voluntary transfer of property ownership without consideration. The following elements must be met for a gift to be effective: 1. Donative intent on the part of the donor. 2. Delivery. 3. Acceptance by the donee. Addressing intent: a court would consider whether Jaspal was under duress when he made the gift to Friedrich. Considering that Jaspal thought that he would not survive the heart attack, it would be reasonable to consider that Jaspal was under duress. In turn Friedrich could argue that Jaspal did not request a return of the gift, thus confirming his intent for Friedrich to retain the gift. Addressing delivery: Jaspal constructively delivered the car by giving the keys to Friedrich. Jaspal's estate could, in turn, argue that the title to the car was not delivered and thereby challenging both intent and delivery. There was no conflict with the acceptance of the gift.
Crane Dilemma: In the case of APL Limited v. Washington State Department of Revenue , 154 Wash.App 1020 (2010) the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Department of Revenue. The Appellate Court reversed and remanded to the trial court for further determination. The Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's determination does not mean that the cranes were fixtures. The Court reversed and remanded to the trial court in order for it to examine the facts regarding the Port's intent to annex the cranes, because intent is a determining factor for chattel to become a fixture. The Court stated that the factual inferences that can be drawn from the evidence presented should be permitted to be argued to the trial court. Because the trial court did not consider those inferences, summary judgment was inappropriate.
There is no answer for this question