LL.B in Gibberish

[ciroccoj]

OK, I'm officially losing my mind. I've been making up my exam mini-summary all *&%$ing day long, I'm seeing things, and I just typed in

Heffron: (1974, Ont) F: car I: FB? R: FB => x K => x EC

... and it made sense to me.


Heffron v. Imperial Parking Co. Ltd. (1974 Ontario Court of Appeals)
Facts: Heffron parked his car at a parking lot which had signs posted saying "We are not responsible for theft or damage of car or contents, however caused". Heffron had to hand his keys over to the lot attendant. When he came back, he found his car gone, and no explanation for its absence. It was eventually found damaged, and its contents (briefcase, tape deck) missing. Heffron sued, claiming fundamental breach of the contract between himself and Imperial Parking.
Issue: Was there a fundamental breach?
Ratio: Fundamental breach of the contract, because the contract was not just a licence to park - it was transferral of possession of the car (bailment) because he gave the lot attendant his keys. Therefore, there was no contract. Therefore, no exclusion clause, as it was contained in a contract that had no force.

Comments

[tudorlady.livejournal.com]

This scares the living shit out of me. I *did* understand a portion of it. (Yeahbut, I would have used a ≠.)

And when I read the explanation, I not only understood it, but I thought of a couple of possible instances where an implied contract might just enter into the picture (depending on what sort of parking facility it was - lot, garage?) (okay, maybe not in Ontario, but the lower 48 is a lot more fucking litigious - the insurance company would probably throw up its hands, pay the dude for the stuff, and tell the lot owners they just got off cheap). Yikes.

What's scary is that I'm not either (a) paying to learn this crap, or (b) being paid to think about crap like this. I'm going to spend the night huddled in the corner swatting imaginary bugs now.

There are times I wish I did drugs, honestly...

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

This scares the living shit out of me. I *did* understand a portion of it.

That scares me too ;)

depending on what sort of parking facility it was - lot, garage?)

Not sure what physical type it was, but here the important thing was that he gave the attendant his keys. There was another case (don't remember the name - should learn it before my Property exam;) with the same facts, but there was no transfer of keys. In that case the contract between them was a licence to park (ie, for this sum of money we let you park here and don't tow you away) instead of a bailment (ie, for this sum of money we take temporary possession of your car). With a licence, the car owner had no grounds to sue, because the parking lot did not implicitly promise to take car of his car.

Lawyers. Feh.

I'm going to spend the night huddled in the corner swatting imaginary bugs now.

LOL!!! I've felt that way all year. I can't believe I am paying to learn this shit ;)

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Sense? Not really but I think it does pretty much explains why I'm a scientist.

So did he have grounds to sue or not? I seem to have missed that.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

Sense? Not really but I think it does pretty much explains why I'm a scientist.

Yeeeaaahh... I miss working with computers (I was a computing science major). Tough, but logical. Understandable.

So did he have grounds to sue or not? I seem to have missed that.

Yeah, he did. Because they had breached the contract, the contract was void. And since the contract had the clause "we are not responsible for any loss blah blah" and the contract was now void, so was the clause. So they had to take responsibility for the loss and damage.

Clear as mud, no?

What I hate is when I read an entire case and at the end I'm still not sure who the hell won. It happens disturbingly often.

[daf9.livejournal.com]

Okay, so this is the part I didn't quite get. If the contract was VOID, how could there be a breach of contract. Or is it that the we-aren't-responsible contract is void but that by handing over his keys to the attendant the car owner has entered into an implicit contract of some sort with the parking facility? This is why law makes my head hurt.

[ciroccoj.livejournal.com]

If the contract was VOID, how could there be a breach of contract. Or is it that the we-aren't-responsible contract is void but that by handing over his keys to the attendant the car owner has entered into an implicit contract of some sort with the parking facility?

Yes, exactly.

The contract that held the clause was void, because it had been breached. I know, try to do the mental gymnastics around that one. My first reaction is, well then there's no problem here - no contract, no duty to take care of the car. And I'm still not convinced that, by contract logic, that's not true.

However. The explanation is that the "I give you money, you take care of my car, I don't sue you for damages" contract is void, but the "implied" contract of bailment ("I give you my thing - car, pen, pet, etc - and you agree to take care of it") is still valid. And under that implied contract, one of the implied conditions of "you agree to take care of it" is "and if you don't take care of it, I'll sue you."

At least, that's how it was explained to me in Property class. Same case in two different classes, each focussing on an entirely different set of facts and concepts. I wonder if Mr. Heffron had any idea when he parked his car that day that someday he'd be making so many law students cry.