Personal Property for Person Suffering from Alzheimers Disease - Assignment Example

Personal Property Edwin Allen, on the morning of February 12, 1981, drove his new 1981 automobile into a parking garage he had parked his car in several times before. At the entrance of the parking garage, there stood a sign at entrance level that welcomed one to the appellant’s establishment, the Hyatt Regency – Nashville. Inside the particular car garage too, was another sign for the appellant’s institution accompanied with a “Parking” sign. The appellee used the parking garage for purposes of parking his automobile since the public were invited to use it. The parking garage in which the appellee parked his car was owned by the appellant, and before parking his automobile, the appellee received a receipt to allow for the same. The nature of relationship between the appellee and the appellant, therefore, qualifies for express bailment. The express bailment in this case is written as is proven by the receipt, a written confirmation. The bailment at will would depend on the amount of time that the bailor, Mr. Allen, would need to use the parking garage, and would be terminated once he submitted the receipt to the attendant at the single exit of the parking garage. The bailee would act as a warehouser because there would be a compensation for the period of time used to store the automobile. The bailment in this case was for the mutual benefit of both the bailor who is the appellee in this case, and the bailee who is the appellant (Twomey and Jennings). While the bailor would have his automobile parked in a safe environment, the bailee would receive payment that is in relation to the amount of the time that the parking garage was used. When bailment is for the mutual benefit of both bailor and bailee, the bailee is liable to the bailor for ordinary negligence, and the bailee bears the duty of ordinary care to his property (Twomey and Jennings). Though the appelee and the appellant have a bailor-bailee kind of relationship, there is no liability to be borne by the bailee. Any liability that would have been shouldered by the appellant was disqualified by the reciept purchased by the appelee. The ticket bore clear instructions that it only served the purpose of gauging the time an automobile has been in the parking garage and not for identification of the vehicle. Though there was an attendant present at the exit of the parking garage, the attendant had no means of identifying whether persons left with the right cars. The ticket also made it clear that the appellant would not be held responsible for losses incurred by theft, fire, collision or otherwise; and that automobiles were parked at owner’s risk. In this relationship of the appelant and the appellee, though that of a bailee and bailor respectively, the baillee is not liable because the loss of property. The theft that occurred was as a result of third party, hence exempting the appellant of liability (Twomey and Jennings). The nature of this relationship qualifies for a bailment and not a gift. Three conditions are necessary for the relationship to be that of a gift. There has to be a doner, the intent to transfer title, and delivery to donee (Twomey and Jennings). The doner, the person making a gift must have the intent to transfer title. The donee, on the other hand, must have the gift delivered to them. The relationship between the appellee and the appellant lacks intent to transfer, and delivery. The law of contracts and disabilities A law may be defined as an agreement which creates obligations and is stands to be enforced by the law. When parties enter into a contract, the law requires that each of the parties fulfils the agreed upon obligations as is stated. For a contract to be enforceable, it needs to have an agreement, be supported by legally sufficient consideration, serve a legal purpose, and be made by parties who have the legal capacity to enter into the contract (Miller and Jentz). When all these conditions are met, the contract is said to be valid. When the elderly woman and her attorney entered into contract, not all of the contractual elements were satisfied. According to law, the elderly woman could not enter into a legally binding agreement since she was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Though the disease was in the early stages, it compromised her ability to make legally binding decisions. The contract between the elderly woman and her attorney can be considered to be unenforceable because of legal defenses from the side of the elderly woman. Though at face-value it appears to have met all the stipulations of a valid contract, it cannot be enforced legally due to technicality (Schaefer). Alzheimer’s disease progressively causes mental degeneration in an individual. The attorney was aware of the fact that at the time the elderly woman is widowed she suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. Over time, it was expected that her mental capacities would have considerably been compromised. With this knowledge, the attorney still pursues further contracts with the elderly woman. The attorney proceeds to act in his personal interest as opposed to the best interests of the client. The attorney induces the woman to give a valuable parcel of land to a company he owns. The contract can also be considered to be a void contract since it does not satisfy all the legal requirements that define a valid contract. Regardless of the stage at which Alzheimer’s is, the nature of the disease is that it causes a degeneration of mental capacity. This being the case, the elderly woman could not be legally bound by the contract that the account manager helps her to come up with. The new will that gives the account manager the power of attorney is made by a person who legally is not mentally sound thus it is void (Schaefer). When mental disability is legally proven, a contract in which such a party participates cannot be enforced since the party was not in the right frame of mind to make legal decisions. Disability also becomes a defense to a contract if it causes degeneration of mental capacities. Alzheimer’s disease is a condition that is medically understood for the degenerative effect it has on mental capacities of an individual. The mental disability of the woman disqualifies her from being able to sign over the power of attorney to her account manager. According to contract law in Arizona, void contracts are contracts only in name, and are not legally enforceable. Though not legal, it is not illegal if the void contracts are fulfilled (Miller and Jentz). Even in Arizona, the assignment of power of attorney to the account manager is not legally binding. The elderly woman, owing to the Alzheimer’s disease she suffered from, was not mentally sound to enter legally binding agreements. Works Cited Miller, Roger and Gaylord Jentz. Business Law Today, Standard Edition. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2010. Print. Schaefer, Jesse A. "Beyond a Definition: Understanding the Nature of Void and Voidable Contracts." Campbell Law Review (2010): 193 - 209. Document. Twomey, David and Marianne Jennings. Anderson's Business Law and the Legal Environment, Standard Volume. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning, 2013. Print. Read More