A bailment is called a deposit within the Civil Code. It is defined as “[a] voluntary deposit [...] made by one giving to another, with his consent, the possession of personal property to keep for the benefit of the former, or of a third party.” (Civ. Code, § 1814.)
A bailment as defined by Civil Code section 1955 as follows: “[e]xcept as otherwise agreed by the lessor and the lessee in lease agreements for a term of more than 20 days, one who leases personal property must deliver it to the lessee, secure his or her quiet enjoyment thereof against all lawful claimants, put it into a condition fit for the purpose for which he or she leases it, and repair all deteriorations thereof not occasioned by the fault of the lessee and not the natural result of its use.” (Cal. Civ. Code §1955).
The elements of a breach of contract claim are:
(Tribeca Companies, LLC v. First American Title Insurance Co. (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1088, 1109.)
“The elements of breach of bailment are substantially similar. “In a broad sense a bailment is the delivery of a thing to another for some special object or purpose, on a contract, express or implied, to conform to the objects or purposes of the delivery which may be as various as the transactions of men.” (H. S. Crocker Co. v. McFaddin (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 639, 643.)
Under California law, “a bailment for the benefit of both parties ... is a bailment for hire, and imposes on the bailee the duty to use ordinary care with respect to the bailed property.” (Gerbert v. Yank (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 544, 551 (emphasis added).)
“A bailment ‘is made by one giving to another, with his consent, the possession of personal property to keep for the benefit of the former, or of a third party.’” (McKell v. Washington (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1491 citing Civ. Code, § 1814; see Gebert v. Yank (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 544, 551; 13 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, supra, Personal Property, § 156, p. 168.) In McKell “Plaintiffs allege in their breach of bailment cause of action that they ‘delivered to Washington Mutual, and Washington Mutual agreed to hold for the benefit of plaintiffs, money to pay the cost of underwriting, tax services and wire transfer services.’” (Id.) “More specifically, they allege that "Washington Mutual entered into a standard form loan contract with plaintiffs..., in which plaintiffs... agreed to pay Washington Mutual for the benefit of third parties money for the cost of tax services, and Washington Mutual agreed to pay over to these third party vendors the actual cost for these services and return the remainder to plaintiffs...’” “In breach of this agreement, Washington Mutual paid only a portion of the money to the third party vendors and kept a portion for itself.”
Mar 18, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Feb 03, 2020
San Joaquin County, CA
Sep 23, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Sep 23, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Sep 23, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Jun 17, 2019
Santa Clara County, CA
Apr 17, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
Feb 06, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Jan 15, 2019
San Francisco County, CA
Nov 13, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Nov 01, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Oct 24, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Oct 12, 2018
Santa Clara County, CA
Oct 05, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Oct 05, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Oct 02, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Sep 20, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Sep 07, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Sep 04, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Aug 30, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 28, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Aug 09, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Aug 08, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 27, 2018
San Francisco County, CA
Jul 17, 2018
Fresno County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.