Full question:
A package intended for me was accidentally sent to a UPS Store. The store accepted the package and didn't notify me or the sender for 7 weeks. Now she is refusing to release the package unless is paid an exorbitant fee for storage. I say she has an obligation to return my property that accidentally came into her possession, since she never had any right to accept a package addressed to me in the first place.
- Category: Bailment
- Date:
- State: Colorado
Answer:
The answer will depend on all the facts involved, such as how the package came to be delivered to them. It will be a matter of subjective determination for the courts based on all the circumstances involved. The court may find out of principles of fairness that the store is entitled to a reasonable storage fee. However, the court may find that the delay in notifying you of the package was unreasonable, and therefore storage for such period should not get paid.
When a person who is not a landlord agrees to hold property for another, a bailment is created. There are different types of bailments- "bailments for hire" in which the custodian (bailee) is paid, "constructive bailment" when the circumstances create an obligation upon the custodian to protect the goods, and "gratuitous bailment" in which there is no payment, but the bailee is still responsible. There is a lower standard of care imposed upon the bailee in a gratuitous bailment, and the parties may contract to hold the bailee free from liability in any bailment. As the law of bailments establishes a lower standard of care for the bailee in a gratuitous bailment agreement, such an agreement or receipt should indicate explicitly that the bailee is acting without compensation. When a bailment is for the exclusive benefit of the bailee, the bailee owes a duty of extraordinary care. If the bailment is for the mutual benefit of the bailee and bailor, the bailee owes a duty of ordinary care. A gratuitous bailee must use only slight care and is liable only for gross negligence. To create a bailment, the alleged bailee must have actual physical control with the intent to possess. Physical control and intent to possess will be interpreted according to the expectations of the parties. If a court thinks that liability would be unexpected or unfair, it can usually find that the defendant did not have “physical control” or “intent to possess.” For example, courts are more likely to find a bailment of a car exists in a garage with an attendant than in a park and lock garage.
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.
