Is John confused as to the applicable law

Assignment Help Business Law and Ethics

Reference no: EM133208947

Question - John sold a factory warehouse in Milperra (Premises) to Liberty Ink Pty Ltd. John had been storing a locked shipping container on the Premises and he had arranged with Liberty Ink that he would remove the container one week after settlement occurred. After that one week had expired, Liberty Ink had contacted John on a number of occasions to ask him to remove the shipping container.

Six weeks after settlement, John sent a truck to the Premises to collect the shipping container, but the container could not be found. A representative of Liberty Ink said that he had assumed John had taken the container, as, when he turned up to work two days ago, he noticed it was not there. Unbeknownst to Liberty Ink, the shipping container contained a Rolls Royce Phantom worth approximately $2 million dollars.

John has decided to sue Liberty Ink for the value of the Rolls Royce, and he is representing himself. As with most self-represented litigants, it is difficult to know precisely what John is arguing but he recently wrote a letter to Liberty Inc saying the following:

"Where a person, such as Liberty Ink, has possession of house or land, such as the Premises, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon or in it, then, if something is found on that land, whether by an employee of the owner or by a stranger, such as my Rolls, then the presumption is that the possession of that thing is in the owner of the locus in quo... ipso facto [John's way of saying therefore] Liberty Ink had possession of my Rolls as bailee, it has breached its duty of care (it did not even call me to tell me it had been stolen I discovered this for myself) so Liberty Ink owe me for the Rolls. The Rolls is worth $2m (see enclosed valuation) so unless Liberty Ink contact me and arrange for payment of this figure within 7 days, I'll see Liberty Ink in court."

Liberty Ink come to you for advice. Is John confused as to the applicable law? Is Liberty Ink liable to John as a bailee of the Rolls Royce Phantom?

Give reasons for your answer.

Reference no: EM133208947

Questions Cloud

Discuss sex-linked inheritance and give examples : Explain the process of fertilization and implantation name location and time and What is trisomy 21 name the different causes and what are the main risk factor

Do the parents display a goodness of fit strategy : Do the parents display a goodness of fit strategy for Gabriel's temperament? What strategies would you recommend for Gabriel's parents to ease the situation

Has john made an effective gift of any or all of property : Has John made an effective gift of any or all of this property? Give reasons referring to relevant case law

Differentiate the primary and quaternary structure : Differentiate the primary and quaternary structure. In regards to the primary structure, tell how many amino acids and include if their are special amino acid

Is John confused as to the applicable law : Liberty Ink come to you for advice. Is John confused as to the applicable law? Is Liberty Ink liable to John as a bailee of the Rolls Royce Phantom

Describe the proteins in the skim milk sample lane : Describe the proteins in the skim milk sample lane (do not describe proteins in the other lanes) in terms of their size and abundance

Describe the privacy issues : Describe the privacy issues, which was associated with Ring, and explain how Amazon and its customers solved the problem

Determine the genotype of the parents : Determine the genotype of the parents and Put the male's gametes on the top and the female's gametes down the side. Determine the frequency of each phenotype

Locate the doctrine in the UCC and describe accommodation : The doctrine of "accommodation" is unique to the UCC and is entirely inconsistent with the Common Law of contracts. Locate the doctrine in the UCC

User Account

All Pages