so through all that rambling, i could ditch merchandise at a friend's house and nothing could be done. if he willingly takes the subs in, isn't he considered to have atleast joint possesion?The relationship between LLoyd(bailee) and the person whose sub it is (bailor)the issue at law...not Illmatic. This is a bailor/bailee relationship with the sole benefit going to lloyd. (assuming there was no mutual benefit by the bailor, and I'm assuming there was not). Thus EXTRAORDINARY care has to be taken by the bailee under reasonable circumstances to prevent loss or theft, and lloyd has the burden of proof to show there is no negligence here. The bailor has the presumption that negligence has arisen. However, depending who the sub was actually shipped to(name on the package)...could change the story. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Everyone shipped their subs to lloyd. Thanks for validating my claims in legalease. Maybe MBA-JD afterall.The relationship between LLoyd(bailee) and the person whose sub it is (bailor)the issue at law...not Illmatic. This is a bailor/bailee relationship with the sole benefit going to lloyd. (assuming there was no mutual benefit by the bailor, and I'm assuming there was not). Thus EXTRAORDINARY care has to be taken by the bailee under reasonable circumstances to prevent loss or theft, and lloyd has the burden of proof to show there is no negligence here. The bailor has the presumption that negligence has arisen. However, depending who the sub was actually shipped to(name on the package)...could change the story. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
Not really. It would be no different than if he had them stored at a facility. WHat a ustore have respobsibility?so through all that rambling, i could ditch merchandise at a friend's house and nothing could be done. if he willingly takes the subs in, isn't he considered to have atleast joint possesion?
How is that? He(Lloyd) is obviously not responsible enough to pay his debts owed to friends, what makes you think it would be a good decision for chad to drop off the subs at lloyds place, if the whole point of dropping them off there is to get the subs to the original owner.yes.
i smell a stinky hoe..I smell a thread lock //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif
actually jackass, if he gave them back to lloyd he is off the hook since the original agreement was with lloyd and the op, and then lloyd drags hix into it.How is that? He(Lloyd) is obviously not responsible enough to pay his debts owed to friends, what makes you think it would be a good decision for chad to drop off the subs at lloyds place, if the whole point of dropping them off there is to get the subs to the original owner.
You need to get over your e-ego and get a life. 30,000 posts, Jesus Christ. This is a real situation with money invovled not another thread you can come in and stir up controversy like you seem to love to do.
No, you cant transfer title to "converted" merchandise because the title is voidable, unless you are a bona-fide purchaser (had no idea the subs were stolen) this can be another issue. Thus, the remedy is that it goes back to the original owner. This means Illmatic could call the police and just give the subs to them, but let's be real, the cops will throw the subs out. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif However, if the popo do their job, they should contact the original owner of the sub, verify somehow the sub/subs are in fact his, and most likely will make him pay for the sub to be returned. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/frown.gif.a3531fa0534503350665a1e957861287.gif Thus, no liability to Ill, but to sue lloyd for shipping/loss of use of the sub would be a terrible waste of litigation.so through all that rambling, i could ditch merchandise at a friend's house and nothing could be done. if he willingly takes the subs in, isn't he considered to have atleast joint possesion?
if ustore knew there were stolen crap in there, they should be responsible. also hix isn't a storage unit. he's a friend who knowingly took possesion of the speakersNot really. It would be no different than if he had them stored at a facility. WHat a ustore have respobsibility?
Do the JD/MBA route...I'm too lazy to do the MBA part. As long as they were shipped to lloyd, my 1st post stands.Everyone shipped their subs to lloyd. Thanks for validating my claims in legalease. Maybe MBA-JD afterall.
Taking possession of known stolen property is a whole new ball game..but has the man whose sub it is actually filed a police report to verify this? If not, and he thinks they are "stolen", he needs to.if ustore knew there were stolen crap in there, they should be responsible. also hix isn't a storage unit. he's a friend who knowingly took possesion of the speakers
i would file a stolen property claim because hix doesn't seem to care too much and no one knows wher lloyd isTaking possession of known stolen property is a whole new ball game..but has the man whose sub it is actually filed a police report to verify this? If not, and he thinks they are "stolen", he needs to.