Talk:Bailment

Parking garage

Under Bailment what if the posing bailor is not the owner, do they have the authority to pass on bailment or would this be a case on involuntary bailment.

Where the author claims that the parking garage relationship is not one of bailment, the claim is overbroad. If the parking garage is attended, as in Allen v. Hyatt Regency 668 S.W. 2d 286, the relationship can be held to be a bailment and not one of licence.

I added "unattended" to the text to clarify the parking garage example. Folklore1 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory

The first sentence of this article was quoted verbatim (without citation) by Sheldon Cooper (Jim Parsons) on tonight's episode of The Big Bang Theory, "The Work Song Nanocluster". Just thought I'd mention it. --Arteitle (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation - we'll look into it. bd2412 T 16:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

House-sitting question

What if during a bailment involving a house sitter responsible for protecting the bailor's house and pets, the bailor's pet dog is lost without a collar or identification; does the person finding and taking control of that lost dog, become the new bailee? If yes, does the new bailee have the responsibility to protect and to return the dog to the bailor or to the house sitter? John Elw (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The person finding lost property is generally required to surrender that property to the true owner, if the true owner becomes known before the a statutory period set forth in the laws of the state. However, I doubt that a finder of lost property who makes such a return could be held accountable to injury to the property. bd2412 T 16:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the finder bailee have any responsibility to the house sitter who is NOT the owner/bailor of the pet?John Elw (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

A bailee has superior title to anyone in the world except the true owner, so the finder would have the same duty to turn the pet over to the bailee (unless the true owner claimed it directly). bd2412 T 15:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the finder of a dog become a bailee for that dog?John Elw (talk) 15:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a voluntary bailment solely for the benefit of the true owner, so the finder is liable only for gross negligence (not for ordinary negligence) if for example the dog is injured. There might be a local statute which overrides this common-law rule, though. You'd have to check with someone familiar with the laws of your particular jurisdiction. bd2412 T 17:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

History

Might be helpful to throw in a bit about the history of the concept. The Hebrew Bible briefly addresses the concept of property that's taken from the person who's taken something for safekeeping (see Exodus 22), so presumably there are sources examining how this passage has been applied and/or relating its ideas to other concepts of bailment. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Terms

A photograph of a "no bailment" notice would be useful in this section if anyone could upload one. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Mention of expert

This references Norman Palmer QC as an expert on the topic, who appears to be a notable legal person (without a WP article - outside my field). Should the link be added? Jackiespeel (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

US point of view?

This article appears to assume a US point of view. For example, in the common law of England, bailment need not be for a precise term. Nor is the battle a trustee for the bailor.

OnceATeacher (talk) 10:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a footnote (using "efn") to clarify that under English common law, the bailee need not be a trustee for the bailor (citing OUP The Principles of Equity & Trusts 2020). SpookiePuppy (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've also added a second footnote to explain that under English common law, a bailment need not be for "a term", it can be "at will". Citing England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland, Cyprus (Otto Schmidt/De Gruyter European Law Publishers, 2009). SpookiePuppy (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks OnceATeacher (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Bailment article has been altered by an anonymous User talk:2404:440C:2A65:BB00:B09F:DBB4:BF99:CF08 and the part about trustee (an aspect relating US law) has been removed along with one of the footnotes which I added to help clarify that this was not the case under English law. The footnote contained two good sources along with quotes for added clarity.

I reverted their unsourced edit, but they have then reverted my attempt to restore the page as it was. Obviously, I want to avoid entering an edit war with them, even though they have little editing history, (just 3 edits), all of which relate to this article.

Despite my references in the removed footnote, it could be that they are correct about "something held in trust" being completely different and unconnected to bailment, but this anonymous user is going about this the wrong way.

Curiously, the Google A.I. summarised the main distinction as follows:

The fundamental difference lies in the transfer of ownership: a bailment does not transfer legal title, whereas a trust requires a transfer of legal title to the trustee. This distinction leads to different types of obligations and enforcement mechanisms.

Am not entirely sure what to do next?

Just thought I would add this to the discussion here. SpookiePuppy (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I think they're right. Bailment is a matter of law, and trusts are a matter of equity. I'd be surprised if this (English) distinction is not maintained in the US jurisdictions that acknowledge trusts. Over here (England), the jurisdictions evolved entirely independently and are still substantially separate legal systems - for all that the separate courts for each have been fused since the end of C19.

I'm no lifelong Wikipedian, but since you ask what to do next, I'd say leave it. Agreed, anonymous railing at named contributors is not the Wikipedia Way, but afaik the content has been improved. OnceATeacher (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think you are right, best to leave it as is. I appreciate your help with this. SpookiePuppy (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2025 (UTC)