Limiting Liability in Shurgard


Added on  2019-09-18

2 Pages303 Words365 Views
Shurgard's defence on the issue “Does Shurgardthink it should be able to limit its liability”As per the English Common Law, ‘Bailment’ means that a person has temporaryplacement of the control over or the possession of the personal property ("Bailmentand the Property/Contract Interface”). In bailment, the personal property is notintentionally transferred in exchange for something valuable, but the transfer ofcustody or possession is involved in this. Since Shurgard did not transfer eithercustody or possession, so he was not the professional bailee and thus no public policygot violated by him. It is mentioned in the ‘Contract law’ that the exculpatory agreements are thosedocuments that protect the people and the business from the claims that arise fromnegligence. There are some businesses that have unique liability exposures and thusthey can’t operate profitably without the protection afforded by these agreements.Since these agreements were established by Wagenblast vs. Odessa School District,so no public policy was violated and the limitations for the liability for the ordinarynegligence could be included in the lease.The Washington ‘State Self-storage Act’ does not requires the person who is not aprofessional bailee to provide any kind of protection like insurance etc. If the personalproperty of the occupants gets disappeared or stolen. He is not held responsible forthat. So, when Shurgard was not a professional bailee, so he was not liable to provideany protection to the occupant.
Limiting Liability in Shurgard_1

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Evaluating Electronic Security and Gates in Self-Service Storage Facilities

Product Liability and Bailment under Florida Law

Test of Reasonableness Under the Section 11 UCTA


Business Law: Legal Rules and Terms, Credit Agreements, Agent Duties

Different Types of Business Organisation and Their Legal Consequences