Quiz 49: Real Property and Landlord-Tenant Law
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.
Real property means the land and everything permanently attached to it including structures and anything permanently attacked to the structures. Everything else is personal property. In essence real property is immovable whereas personal property is capable of being moved. Since dome is movable it can be classified as personal property.
Bailments: A bailment relationship as to the car, the fur coat or both, must have been created between Curtis and the hotel in order for him to recover the loss of the fur coat. A bailment consists of the following elements and both must be present to create a bailment relationship, and thus liability on the part of the bailee: 1. Delivery of personal property that gives the bailee exclusive possession of the property. 2. Bailee must knowingly accept the bailed property. A bailment was created with respect to the car. Because a mutual benefit bailment was created, the hotel owes Curtis the duty to exercise reasonable care over the property, and to return the bailed car at the end of the bailment. Not returning Curtis's car creates a presumption of negligence. In order for the hotel to prevail under the claim of negligence, it must successfully rebut the presumption. If the hotel fails, it is liable to Curtis for the loss of the car. Unfortunately, Curtis is out of luck regarding the fur coat because a bailment was not created. The bailee (hotel) did not know that it was in receipt of the fur coat even though it had possession of the car. If regularly valued items were in the car, then the hotel would be liable, however, since an expensive fur coat is not a typical car content, it is not part of the liability created through the bailment.