Shurgard's defence on the issue “Does Shurgard think it should
Added on -2019-09-18
| 2 pages
| 303 words
| 365 views
Trusted by 2+ million users, 1000+ happy students everyday
Showing pages 1 to 1 of 2 pages
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.
Found this document preview useful?
You are reading a preview Upload your documents to download or Become a Desklib member to get accesss